Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 25th June, at Seven o'clock.

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 25th June, at Seven o'clock.

WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATIONS BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Lost Man-days

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour how many man-days were lost through industrial disputes, sickness industrial accidents and prescribed diseases, taking the last convenient year in each case.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The approximate number of man-days lost is as follows:



Million


Industrial disputes
3¾


Sickness
280


Industrial accidents
18


Prescribed diseases
1½


It is difficult to make exact comparisons because some of the figures are not comprehensive. For example, the figure for industrial disputes excludes stoppages involving fewer than ten workers, and that for sickness usually excludes absences of less than four days.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: While I thank my right hon. Friend for those very interesting figures, which I think merit considerable further study, would he not agree that there is immense scope for an increase in productivity by eliminating some of the causes leading to sickness in industry?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I think they are very remarkable figures indeed. They show that our losses through sickness are about 75 times our losses through industrial disputes. I am told that at any given time about 1 million men are away from work through sickness. This shows in which field it may be possible to make substantial advances.

Mr. Lee: Could the right hon. Gentleman obtain a breakdown of the sickness figures to show how much is accounted for by the man's occupation as distinct from the ordinary run of sickness?

Mr. Macleod: I have isolated the figures for prescribed diseases, which in part meets the hon. Member's point. I should not think that such a break-down of the sickness figures is available, but I will look into this with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and, if it is available, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Tilbury Power Station Work (Dispute)

Mr. Delargy: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that about 275 workers have been unemployed since 24th April, 1956, owing to a dispute with Messrs. John Thompson Water Tube Boilers Limited at Tilbury Power Station; and whether he will take steps to bring this dispute to an end so that the men may resume work.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that work on the Tilbury Power Station has been held up by a lock-out of about 270 men by Messrs. John Thompson since 24th April, last; and whether he will take steps to get an early resumption of work.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the circumstances in which about 270 men were dismissed by this firm. My regional officer has been in touch with the trade unions and employers' association concerned, and I am informed that the matter is to be discussed at an early date


by representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and of the Engineering and Allied Employers National Federation.

Mr. Delargy: Will not the Minister agree that the alleged reason for the lock-out is rather trivial? Is it not lamentable that work of such grave national importance should be retarded so wantonly? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the dispute has now been in existence for nearly two months and that the firm has made no endeavour whatever to negotiate with the trade unions involved?

Mr. Macleod: Whether it is dismissal of workers, as the firm would say, or a lock-out, as the men claim, is a matter of definition on which I should not like to pronounce. I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the importance of the contract and, therefore, the importance of bringing the dispute, however it may have arisen, to an early end.

Standard Motor Company, Coventry (Redundant Workers)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the workers declared redundant at the Standard Motor Company, Coventry, have been found other employment and whether such employment has been found locally.

Mr. lain Macleod: So far, nearly 300 workers are under submission for other jobs; 212 in their home areas and 79 in other areas, some of which are within daily travelling distance. Of the 1,325 redundant workers, about 977 have registered for employment, and 700 claims to benefit have been traced. I assume that the others are expecting to find or have found their own jobs.

Mr. Moss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that employment exchanges are telling workers that they cannot be placed and are advising them to look for jobs themselves? Is he aware that these men are looking for jobs themselves, at least in Rugby, Birmingham, Bristol and Gloucester? I understand that one worker was even advised about a job in New Zealand. Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the introduction of automation will be eased only if redundancy is anticipated and the closest co-operation takes place both with the

workers and the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Macleod: I entirely agree with the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have said over and over again—and I am delighted to say it once more—that from the very first time that any change, whatever it may be, is planned which may have an effect upon the size of the labour force, the trade unions should be brought into consultation. If there has to be a reduction in the size of the labour force it is of great importance that my Department be called in well before any change takes place.

Mr. Lee: Is any effort being made to analyse the type of worker who is now becoming redundant and to persuade employers of similar types, who could use these men, to go into the area?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. A good deal of work is done in that respect. Vacancies are often circulated much more widely than in the immediate area and where the redundancy occurs. Many people who seek skilled and other labour have been and are making inquiries in the Midlands to see if they can offer suitable posts.

Mr. Usborne: Has not the root cause of the trouble at Coventry stemmed from the fact that in the last four or five years the capital expansion of the motor industry has been quite fantastic? Ought not the Government to have foreseen this and prevented it from expanding so rapidly?

Mr. Macleod: That is a remarkable piece of hindsight; it is terribly easy to say now, but I do not remember any Member of the Opposition saying it a year or more ago.

Hosiery Manufacturers, Keighley (Dispute)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike at Messrs. Bedfords, hosiery manufacturers, Keighley, which has been in operation since October, 1955; and what steps he is now taking to bring the parties together.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to his Question on 1st December, 1955. The only change in the situation since


then is that the employer formally discharged all the workers concerned in February. My regional officer has maintained contact with the employer, who is, however, still unwilling to meet the union.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that every step is being taken by his Department to bring the parties together—or is one to assume that his Department is completely helpless in the face of reactionary employers who refuse to recognise trade unions? Is not there a danger of this sort of dispute spreading? If it did not spread, would not the result be that the strike would be settled?

Mr. Macleod: I am not going to quarrel with the hon. Member's description. It is quite true that this is a very strange attitude for an employer to take towards trade unions. But, after all, if a man decides to dismiss all his employees and virtually to go out of business himself as a result, it is extremely difficult to see what one can helpfully do. My Department has been closely in touch with this matter for a long time. We have been in touch with the employer on five occasions this year, and I am quite prepared to make another approach in view of the hon. Member's supplementary question—but I do not hold out much more hope of finding a settlement than. I think, the hon. Member does.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING

Retail Prices Index (Computation)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that a wide range of articles in daily use, sold in packets, boxes and tubes, bear no specified weight and are subject to fluctuations which lessen the quantity and thereby conceal a price increase; and how such variations in value are computed for the cost-of-living index figure;
(2) if he is aware of the reductions which take place in household goods sold in boxes, particularly starch, nails, bird food, and matches, and of the practice of enlarging boxes whilst decreasing the quantity of the contents; and how he ascertains fluctuations in value to the consumer, for the index figure of the cost of living.

Mr. Iain Macleod: For the purpose of the Retail Prices Index, information is usually obtained from the manufacturers regarding the weight or volume of goods sold in containers which do not specify these details. I am not aware of any general tendency to reduce the quantities in such containers, but, as the hon. Member was informed on a previous occasion, any reduction in quantity is treated as equivalent to a rise in price for the purpose of the index.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contents of packets can be reduced without notice—the same applies to quantities in boxes and bottles—merely by enlarging the container or thickening the bottle? The housewife buying from one day to another does not know that the contents are fluctuating. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this has a very serious effect on the cost of living?

Mr. Macleod: As to the effect on the Retail Prices Index, to which the hon. Lady refers, we do not collect prices of starch, nails or birdseed for the purposes of the index. However, we check that the quantity and quality are the same as in previous months. Therefore, any alteration in the size of the container or the weight of its contents would not affect the validity of the index.

Mrs. Mann: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole practice was condemned by the Hodgson Committee, whose recommendations have been lying before the Government for four years, and about which they have done nothing whatever?

Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Lady knows very well, that is not a matter for my Department.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the prevailing practice of reducing the contents of bottled wines, canned or bottled beer, and household sauces by indenting sides and glass from bottom upwards, and that spirituous liquors are sold by measures, such as nips, which have a different meaning in different parts of Britain; and how these fluctuations are accurately assessed in computing the cost of living index figure.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that many different styles and shapes of bottles


are used as containers, but I have no evidence of any general tendency in recent periods to alter these in such a way as to reduce the contents. Similarly, I have no evidence of general reductions in the size of the nip. As I have just explained in answer to a previous Question, full allowance is made for any known changes in quantity when prices at different dates are compared for the purpose of the retail prices index.

Mrs. Mann: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to find evidence? Is not the evidence obvious all over Britain? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he can possibly achieve a plateau of stability whilst prices around him are fluctuating to this extent?

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite sure what the nip has to do with the plateau. The nip is not a standard measure; it is quite true that it varies from area to area. But as we take the same basis each month for the Retail Prices Index it is the percentage change which is measured by the index, and that is accurately shown.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Recaptured Prisoners (Punishments)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far it is the practice, under his regulations, for an escaped prisoner, after recapture, to be punished, in addition to loss of remission and bread and water diet, by loss of educational, reading and other privileges, being compelled to have a light in his cell all night, and to exercise and associate always with other escapees.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): Prisoners who escape or attempt to escape are placed on the escape list, which means that they are subject to special supervision which necessarily excludes them from, or restricts their participation in, some activities. For example, they may not attend an educational class unless a discipline officer is present, and they are regarded as ineligible for certain jobs which carry an element of trust. The light in their cells is kept burning at half

strength during the night. In some prisons they are excluded from association for meals and recreation, and this precludes them from reading daily newspapers in association, but their right to have library books and to receive books and periodicals from outside is not affected. These restrictions are designed to prevent escape and are not imposed by way of additional punishment.

Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware that, whatever the intention may be, the effect of these regulations is to punish these men twice—and in a very severe way? Is he further aware that a constituent of mine has served nineteen months of a three-year sentence and, for the whole of that time, he has had to have a light burning in his cell? Is that not almost akin to the water torture? Will not the Home Secretary review these provisions, whilst keeping regulations to prevent escape?

Major Lloyd-George: I think that the hon. Member will agree with me that if a prisoner has previously escaped some precautions must be taken to avoid the same thing happening again. That is the only purpose of these precautions. I have looked into the case which, I take it, is the basis of his Question. I can assure him that the governor of the prison reviews the position of all the prisoners on the escape list from time to time and that the prisoner to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring was removed from that list last week.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the compulsion to associate with other escapees an invitation to conspiracy? Is it not impractical and psychologically unsound? Will the Home Secretary seek expert advice in order to satisfy himself that it is unsound and defeats its own end?

Major Lloyd-George: These practices vary from prison to prison. The right of association is one which prisoners regard very highly. In certain cases the association is supervised and in others it is not. The question is considered very carefully indeed.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind and not forget that those who break the law should be punished?

Government Surplus Stocks (Confidential Document)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the result of investigations into the sending of a copy of a confidential police report. Exhibit No. 36, to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, together with the copy of a letter alleging unlawful practices in connection with the disposal of Government surplus stocks.

Major Lloyd-George: As to the circulation of the confidential document, I am unable to add to my reply of 3rd May to the hon. Member. The writer of the letter has been identified and interviewed, and I am informed that no further police action is to be taken.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right non. and gallant Gentleman explain why, when the author of these letters alleging corrupt practices against civil servants has been identified, proceedings are not taken in court; or is there some special reason why these matters should not be brought into the daylight?

Major Lloyd-George: There is some doubt whether the circulation of this document is in fact a criminal offence. Regarding the allegations, I can only say that they are entirely without foundation.

Protection of Children

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the interests of children and the reduction of administrative overheads, he will introduce legislation to provide for the co-ordination of the work of the many statutory and voluntary societies and organisations concerned with the protection of children.

Major Lloyd-George: The terms of reference of the Committee, which as I stated in the reply I gave on 2nd February to the hon. Members for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), I propose to appoint, will enable the Committee to study the problem of preventing or forestalling the suffering of children through neglect in their own homes and to make recommendations for any change in the law. In the meantime, I am arranging, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Education for a survey of the existing

arrangements for co-ordination and, as a first step, local authorities will be asked for up-to-date particulars of the arrangements operating in each area.

Mr. de Freitas: While many hon. Gentlemen will welcome that statement, may I ask the Home Secretary to speed up this, in view of the fact that in certain areas there may be as many as forty people who have not only the right but sometimes the duty to interfere in family life? Is it not right that we should take account of the recent findings of the B.M.A. and the magistrates that family welfare work has been hindered by the number of people and organisations concerned?

Major Lloyd-George: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that this Government—and the Government of which he was a member took the same view—are of opinion that co-ordination is the better way to deal with this. As a result, many local authorities have had these co-ordinating committees, which have done good work. I entirely agree that co-ordination is most important, and I hope that the work of the local authorities will be co-ordinated.

Mr. Bowles: When co-ordination takes place, for example, between the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and his own Children's Department, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that all the information possessed by his Department is put before him?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not aware of any such lack of information. If the hon. Gentleman has any information, I shall be glad if he will provide me with it.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken, where parents or guardians have had more than one conviction for ill-treating a child, to ensure that the child suffers no further cruelty; and whether he will introduce legislation to increase from six months the maximum sentence of a magistrates' court for parents or others convicted of a second offence of cruelty against a child.

Major Lloyd-George: The main remedy which the law provides is the institution of proceedings before a


juvenile court under Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933; if it is satisfied that the child is in need of care or protection, the court has power to make a variety of Orders, including for example, an order committing him to the care of the local authority. These and other provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, including the penalties for cruelty prescribed by Section 1, will be within the terms of reference of the Committee the proposed appointment of which I announced on 2nd February, but, as regards the powers of magistrates' courts, I should not, as at present advised, feel justified in proposing in the case of this offence the quite exceptional step of raising above six months the term of imprisonment which they have power to impose.

Mr. Janner: In view particularly of a recent case at Derby where a parent was accused for the second time of ill-treating his child aged three, and the magistrate declared that he wished he had the power to impose a greater penalty and described the offence as a wicked offence against a defenceless child, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that in such circumstances children should be protected? Is he aware that I am not talking about a first offence but a second offence, possibly against the same child, and that it is an extremely serious position?

Major Lloyd-George: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension—

Mr. Janner: No, I am not.

Major Lloyd-George: I am well aware of the case to which he is referring. It is true that magistrates can impose a sentence of only six months, but they can, if they think fit, commit an offender for trial. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the prosecution did not suggest that that should be done. From my own experience, which extends to long before I came to the Home Office, I can say that when this question was raised and examined, it was found that the powers were sufficient but often were not utilised.

Prisoners of War

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to introduce legislation in order to prevent a

repetition of the incident during the Korean war when certain individuals visited British troops captured by the enemy in order to exert Communist influence upon them and thereby give aid to the Queen's enemies.

Major Lloyd-George: This matter, which presents many legal and practical difficulties, has been under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say whether legislation will be introduced.

Sir J. Hutchison: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend recollect the indignation which this caused in the country at the time when it took place, and can he assure me that the attempt to prevent a repetition of this sort of incident has not in fact been abandoned?

Major Lloyd-George: I am glad to give that assurance. I must repeat that it is an extremely difficult matter.

Prison Inquests (Jurors)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend Section 3 (2) of the Coroners Act, 1887, by adding retired prison officers in receipt of a pension to the list of persons disqualified as jurors in inquests held on persons dying in prison.

Major Lloyd-George: I have no grounds for thinking that there is any need for such legislation.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Home Secretary aware that the list of disqualifications does not include retired prison officers, and that there is general concern about the fact that on inquests on prisoners who die in prison the jury should not include any retired prison officer who is drawing a pension from the State? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look at the list and give an assurance that the disqualifications stated in the Section will apply to the people to whom I have referred?

Major Lloyd-George: It is generally undesirable that retired prison officers, for instance, should be members of such a jury, and I will take steps to see that they are not. There was such a case two or three years ago, and I think that the attention of coroners was drawn to it. I will draw their attention to the matter again, if necessary.

Fire Brigades (Hook-ladders)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the result of his discussions with the Fire Brigades Union on the present two-man hook-ladder drill.

Major Lloyd-George: I am making further inquiries and, when I have completed them, I propose to invite the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, constituted under Section 29 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, to advise me on the general question of the use of hook-ladders in the Fire Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in the opinion of the Fire Brigades Union and a growing number of chief officers, this drill is unnecessary and dangerous, and that on more than one occasion it has led to loss of life? Will he expedite a decision in this matter and end what appears to be a quite unnecessary drill at the earliest possible moment?

Major Lloyd-George: That is the purpose of the meeting I have called to be held in July.

Litter (Byelaws and Offences)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and which, local authorities have made anti-litter byelaws under the Local Government Act, 1933.

Major Lloyd-George: Anti-litter bye-laws have been made under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933, by the councils of 59 counties, 58 county boroughs and 223 non-county boroughs, and under Section 146 of the London Government Act, 1939, by 25 metropolitan borough councils. I will send my hon. Friend a list of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions brought and convictions secured by local authorities for litter offences in each of the last three years.

Major Lloyd-George: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hill: In view of the great cost of clearing up litter and the widespread feeling among local authorities and their

associations that the present powers are not providing an effective sanction against the really troublesome offender, will my right hen. and gallant Friend please consider in future calling for statistics of litter prosecutions and convictions so that we may have some firm basis on which to hose criticisms and recommendations?

Major Lloyd-George: I should not like to make a promise on that, because I visualise that it would be a very difficult matter to collect the information, as there are well over 350 of these local authorities. I will certainly look into the matter.

Walton Prison, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the ages of the 10 prisoners who have been certified as mental and moved from Walton Prison. Liverpool, since January, 1956, to date what term of imprisonment they were serving on what dates they were sentenced and whether during the court proceedings in each case there was any indication of mental disorder.

Major Lloyd-George: In the short time available, I have not been able to obtain all this information. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries have been completed.

Mrs. Braddock: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, but in view of the fact that the figures he gave last week are really startling and have caused great worry to the relatives of the prisoners concerned, is that not a further indication that a full inquiry is needed into what has been happening at Walton Prison? Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that, in addition to collecting the information, he will also seriously consider the question of holding a full inquiry?

Major Lloyd-George: I think I informed the hon. Lady that I am looking into this matter myself. On the results of that will depend what further action is needed. One difficulty I have which will take time is the information asked for in the latter part of the Question.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst the Home Secretary is giving consideration to the subject matter of the Question, will he also consider the conditions under which refractory prisoners in remand homes and


Borstal institutions are being certified as mentally deficient under the Mental Deficiency Acts and what protection those prisoners have under prison regulations?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be another question.

Civil Defence Film (Hydrogen Bomb)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the public exhibition of the Home Office Civil Defence film showing the devastation which would be caused if a hydrogen bomb were dropped on London which was shown privately earlier this week; and whether he will offer the film to the United States and Soviet authorities for public exhibition.

Major Lloyd-George: This is a Civil Defence training film. It is not primarily designed for public showing, but 16 milli-metre copies will be available for hire from the Central Film Library from 20th June and the film has been brought to the notice of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The film does not deal specifically with the effect of a hydrogen bomb on London or any particular city. It has been shown to representatives of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, and a copy has been lodged in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Civil Defence library. I do not think any wider distribution abroad is called for.

Mr. de Freitas: It may not be called for, but is it not desirable, if the film shows dramatically the consequences of hydrogen bomb warfare, that it should be exhibited? Should we not do everything we can to see that it is exhibited as far as possible among people of all countries which have the power to wage such war?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not quarrelling with the idea of the hon. Member, but at the moment this is the only distribution on which we have decided. I will look into the matter.

Prison Service (Conditions)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the situation

revealed at the recent annual conference of prison officers in regard to overcrowding, shortage of staff, and lack of suitable work for prisoners in local prisons.

Major Lloyd-George: I have not received any representations from the Prison Officers' Association since the conference to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will give the most careful consideration to any proposals they may make. I am only too well aware of the existence of these long-standing and intractable problems and I intend to continue to make every effort to mitigate them.

Mr. Hyde: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that the problem is not so much one of conditions of pay in the prison service as one of making the job of the average prison officer more constructive and less negative in practice and, consequently, more rewarding morally? In approaching this difficult question, will he give further consideration to encouraging and stimulating that sense of pride which prison officers should feel in their work, but which it is by no means certain they all do feel?

Major Lloyd-George: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is most important for prison officers to have every pride in their work. Under present circumstances, prison officers can be regarded as social workers. We have done a great deal in this regard, certainly since the war, and we shall continue to do so in order that what my hon. Friend has in mind shall come about.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Cardiff Docks (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following on the recent report of the Council of Wales on the South Wales ports, he will make a personal visit to Cardiff docks when he next visits South Wales.

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot promise to visit Cardiff docks on my next visit to South Wales, but I can assure the hon. Member that I shall be glad to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Callaghan: May I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and say that


he will get a very warm welcome—[Laughter.]—not a hot one. Is he aware that, unless there is some drastic change in the situation, he is likely to find unemployed dockers and empty berths? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bring with him some proposals, arising from the report, about how we can get work into the South Wales ports?

Major Lloyd-George: I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation said to the hon. Gentleman on 6th June. I can assure him that I have the interest of this port very much at heart, and I realise that a complete change has taken place.

Mr. Gower: If my right hon. and gallant Friend should decide on such a visit, will be bear in mind that, just before the First World War, Barry was the greatest coal exporting port in the world and has suffered most from the decline in coal shipping? Will he also visit Barry?

Major Lloyd-George: I shall be glad to visit Barry also, but if my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will take the trouble to read the report, they will discover that the ports of Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Port Talbot and Penarth are also concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Technical Colleges (Design)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education what research is being carried out in his Department into the design and materials of construction of technical colleges.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): My Department has recently issued a revised edition of Building Bulletin No. 5, which deals with colleges of further education. The development group is continuing its researches, and I hope shortly to be able to arrange for it to undertake, jointly with a local education authority, the design and construction of a technical college.

Mr. Albu: Whilst welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not agree that now we are going in for a big programme of expansion of technical colleges, it is highly desirable that they should not be designed on the

lines of municipal-classical or neo-Georgian styles but by using the excellent modern materials so well developed by the excellent architects of his Department?

Sir D. Eccles: I entirely agree, and I think it is a subject well worthy of consideration.

Health Education (Alcohol)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Education whether, as the result of the steps taken by his Department, every child is now receiving specific and systematic instruction as to the properties of alcohol as recommended by the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1929 to 1931.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My Department's handbook of suggestions on health education, designed for teachers and parents, contains a passage on alcohol, and I have no doubt that most pupils receive advice on this matter. My right hon. Friend agrees with the Royal Commission that teachers should be left free to handle it as they think best.

Mr. Henderson: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the latest Report of the Economic Research Council, published this morning, stating that there has been a disturbing increase in the number of persons under 21 convicted of drunkenness? Would it not be possible to arrange for the schools inspectorate to include in their reports to the Department some information on what is going on in schools so that Parliament can be informed of the position?

Mr. Vosper: I have not actually seen the Report to which the right hon. and learned Member referred, but my right hon. Friend is about to reissue the handbook on health education, and there will be a new passage in it referring to alcohol.

Mr. Awbery: Could the Minister instruct all local authorities to place this subject in the curriculum of elementary schools?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend does not impose a curriculum on local authorities or on schools, but I think teachers will make use of the recommendation to the best advantage.

Southwick Catholic Schools, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he has approved the building of the proposed new Catholic schools for infants and juniors in the Southwick parish of Sunderland.

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot yet give a decision on these proposals.

Mr. Willey: Is it not a fact that many of the children affected have exceptionally long distances to travel at present? Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his urgent attention?

Sir D. Eccles: I recognise that the schools are needed, and they are in the proposals for the 1956–58 programme. I hope to come to a decision shortly.

Fordhouses Catholic School, Wolverhampton

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that Catholic children in Fordhouses, Wolverhampton, have to travel up to four miles for denominational education; and when therefore he expects to be able to grant building permission for a new Roman Catholic school at Fordhouses, Wolverhampton.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of this situation but, as things are, I can see no early prospect of being able to approve a proposal to build this school.

Mr. Baird: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now six or seven years since the Ministry first promised to try to include this school in the next year's building programme? Is it not ridiculous that we should have to wait this time and that children have to travel more than four miles to school?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not think so, because there is no shortage of primary school places in this area and it would be wrong to agree to build this school for denominational considerations, with which I sympathise, if it meant leaving empty other primary schools at a time when we are so short of them.

Milk

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education whether in view of the provision now made by some local education authorities for the supply of milk to some schoolchildren at weekends and during

the holidays he will modify that section of Circular 302 which forbids them to continue this provision.

Mr. Vosper: No Sir.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local education authorities have made wise and inexpensive provision whereby some groups of children—sometimes all the orphan children of the local education authority area—are provided with milk at week-ends and during holidays? When milk is so plentiful, is not this decision a mean little economy?

Mr. Vosper: I could not agree that it is necessarily inexpensive. It is additional to milk in schools and is used only by a small proportion of local authorities. Now that milk rationing is no longer in force it is no longer justified.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that this wretched little economy was previously justified on the ground that these provisions were exceptionally expensive, which is not borne out by the experience of the local authority mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) and other authorities?

Mr. Vosper: I said I could not share the view of the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King). To administer these schemes has generally proved expensive and rather wasteful. That is one of the reasons it has been found advisable to discontinue them.

Teachers (Foreign Degrees)

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Minister of Education what considerations determine the recognition of foreign degrees by his Department for the purpose of graduate teachers' allowances.

Sir D. Eccles: I have to consider how the degrees compare with those awarded by universities in this country as regards the standard of entry required for the courses their length and the depth and scope of the study involved.

Mrs. Jeger: Is it not anomalous that there are degrees which are recognised by universities in this country for postgraduate purposes and yet the holders are being treated by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry as undergraduates or as if they had never been near a university at all? Will he look into the matter


again to see whether his practice cannot accord with that of the universities of this country?

Sir D. Eccles: I am bound to say that I do not think the case which the hon. Lady has quoted is the same. The requirements for recognition for postgraduate courses are not the same as the requirements for recognition for payment as a graduate teacher. I do not think the teaching profession—quite rightly—would wish to have a degree such as the pass degree in the Calcutta University recognised as a degree here.

Mr. M. Stewart: If the University of London, as I believe it does, regards a pass degree at Calcutta as qualifying a man to be regarded as a graduate and, therefore, capable of going on to postgraduate studies, on what basis does the right hon. Gentleman say that he will not regard such a man as a graduate?

Sir D. Eccles: On the basis that I have to maintain the standards of the teaching profession. London University can do what it likes—I am glad to say that it is a free institution—but the two-year course in Calcutta University does not come up to the standard which we require for a graduate teacher in this country.

Mr. Stewart: From where does the right hon. Gentleman get his standards if he does not pay some regard to the opinions of universities, who are probably the best authorities to judge in a matter like this?

Sir D. Eccles: I take the standard from the great deal of experience which we have. If we started recognising two-year courses of this kind as equivalent to the three-year course in an English university, we should have the whole of the two-year teacher training college students saying that they were graduates.

Mr. Stewart: I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to recognise any two-year course at any university but to consider the proposition that, if a notable British university regards a man as a graduate, it is curious that the Minister says he is not a graduate.

Maladjusted Children (Schools)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made in the conversion of premises

formerly used as approved schools to the needs of maladjusted children.

Mr. Vosper: The only approved school premises taken into use for maladjusted children are Langham Oaks, near Colchester. A special school was opened there on 28th May and will accommodate 40 senior boys.

Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any further examples of this in the near future?

Mr. Vosper: I fear not. I have examined in great detail the cases of all the other schools at present available, and I am reluctantly satisfied that none of them will be suitable for this purpose.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education the average period of time that elapses between the notification of a child as maladjusted and its admission to an appropriate school.

Mr. Vosper: I regret that this information is not available.

National Camps Corporation (Schools)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Minister of Education what are his plans for the National Camps Corporation schools at West Mark, Petersfield, and Lordsfield, Basingstoke, now both fully equipped and staffed and due to be closed down next month; to what extent the camp staffs are to be dispersed; and what compensation the camp managers are to receive for loss of their homes and employment.

Sir D. Eccles: The Corporation is still looking for purchasers for these camps. As many as possible of the staff will be absorbed in other camps. The employment of the rest will end in accordance with their terms of employment. The question of ex gratia payments for camp managers is one in the first place for the Corporation but I will consider any proposals that they may make to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Detained Woman

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware that a woman prisoner, Mmamyana Massase, of Seruli, Bechuanaland, was prior to trial


handcuffed, tied to two lion traps, left without food for 28 hours, and confined during the night in a cement-floored hut without a blanket; that by the order of the Subordinate Native Authority the handcuffs were tightened during the hearing to make her tell the truth and that she was subsequently discharged; and if will take steps to prevent such treatment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): The woman in question is the wife of a bushman who was arrested for stock theft and escaped. It was suspected, on strong evidence, that she had aided his escape; she was detained for investigation and released next day. I am investigating the other allegations made in the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not the case that general charges were made by Mr. Peto Sekgoma, who had been a chief adviser in the Serowe kgotla as long ago as last November, when they were denied by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's office? I then obtained many details, names of witnesses, names of places, and so on, and I have had no reply as yet to these general charges. Will the hon. and gallant Member expedite an inquiry and a reply?

Commander Noble: I do not think the case in this Question is referred to in the correspondence which the hon. Member has mentioned. I have in draft a long letter to him, which I hope to sign this evening.

Mr. Bevan: Why not answer it now?

Mining Development

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what commercial firm has surveyed part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate; what metals they have discovered in exploitable quantities; and what development is contemplated.

Commander Noble: A number of commercial firms have surveyed for minerals in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and, with permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Copper, gold, and silver have been discovered in exploitable quantities; for further information I

would refer the hon. Member to the Bechuanaland Geological Survey Department's published annual report. For the answer to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7th June.

Mr. Johnson: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that no leases will be given to any firms, South African or otherwise, without the consent and the knowledge of the African native authorities concerned? Secondly, will he tell the House, if he is able to do so, what decisions were made about mining development at the meeting of the African Advisory Council for Bechuanaland a fortnight ago?

Commander Noble: I think my reply will answer both supplementary questions. The Resident Commissioner has told members of the Council about these preliminary talks and has explained that the Government would arrange a meeting between the company and representatives of the chiefs concerned. He promised that he would consult the chiefs before the meeting about the policy to be adopted in the negotiations.

Following is the list:

List of Commercial Firms which have Surveyed for Minerals in the Bechuanaland Protectorate

Mineral Concessions

British South Africa Company—abandoned 1934.

British South Africa Company—abandoned 1934.

Sidney Morris (later transferred to B.S.A. Company)—abandoned 1934.

John Williams (transferred to Balkis Limited)—abandoned 1936.

Willy Nicholls and Reisle (transferred to Balkis Limited)—abandoned 1936.

Julius Weil—cancelled 1955.

Phillip Dawson—abandoned 1937.

Crown Grants

British South Africa Company—lapsed 1934.

Balkis Limited—abandoned 1936.

De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited—lapsed 1939.

Mineral Property Investigations Limited—cancelled 1945.

Ngamiland Exploration Limited—abandoned 1949.

Strathmore Exploration Limited—lapsed 1951.

Marble Lime and Associated Industries Limited (transferred to Marlime Chrysotile Asbestos Corporation Limited).

Cullinan Brothers—lapsed 1953.

Cullinan Brothers—lapsed 1954.

D. R. Kent—lapsed 1954.

Isaac Meyer—lapsed 1954.

Cullinan Brothers—lapsed 1954.

Charles Weatherilt and Petrus van Vuuren—lapsed 1954.

Petrus Combrink and Johan Combrink—lapsed 1954.

Arthur Thomas Cullinan—lapsed 1954.

Partnership of eight names—lapsed 1954.

Cullinan Brothers—lapsed 1954.

Petrus Cullinan and Hendrick Strydom—lapsed 1954.

Cullinan Brothers—lapsed 1954.

Other Grants

Tati Concessions Limited by Chapter 90 of the Laws of Bechuanaland.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Iron and Steel Scrap (Prices)

Mr. D. Howell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase he recently authorised in the price of scrap iron; what percentage increase this represents, and what is the price per ton as a result of this action; and why this increase was authorised.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): The average increase in the price of iron and steel scrap was £2 a ton, or 24 per cent. The average price of scrap is now £10 10s. a ton. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 12th June to the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the question which I put to him about the percentage? Is it not a fact that this is a 17 per cent. increase in the cost of this basic raw material? Is he aware of the advice which Lord Rochdale gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that basic prices were the uncontrollable element in the cost of production? Is not this large increase quite unwarranted, and will it not reflect on the manufacturing costs of industry? Is this his Ministry's contribution to the plateau of stability?

Mr. Low: I answered the hon. Gentleman's Question. Perhaps he failed to hear me. The answer was 24 per cent. The reason for the increase was explained quite clearly in the reply to which I referred him.

Export Trades (Co-operative Agencies)

Mr. G. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has so far taken to encourage smaller firms in manufacturing trades to form co-operative agencies for promoting exports; and whether he will lend the services of his Department to trade associations for this purpose.

Mr. Low: Industry is well aware of this method of export trading. The Government's export services are available at all times to trade associations and their members, but it must be for the firms concerned to decide on the best method of conducting their export business.

Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite a number of trades, particularly in the light engineering section, could expand their exports if the individual firms could spend more money on overseas advertising promotion and sales, but that they cannot afford this unless they work together? Would he encourage them by suggesting schemes of co-operative action which would achieve that result?

Mr. Low: I do not think any suggestions from us are necessary. This is already done in one or two cases, and there are, of course, other methods—quite satisfactory methods, such as exporting through export merchants—which also work extremely well to this end. I am well aware of the importance of smaller manufacturers exporting more.

STANDING COMMITTEES (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making an allowance for attendance at Standing Committees when next considering the question of an increase in the salaries of Members.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Note has been taken of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Lewis: I was rather surprised to get that reply. Is the Minister aware of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in which many hon. Members are finding it difficult to meet their Parliamentary


expenses out of the Parliamentary salary and, therefore, have to go out to earn money, which means that other hon. Members who, because of their normal jobs, cannot earn money in this way, are having to man the Committees and do all the Parliamentary work? Surely he regards that as pretty unfair on those hon. Members who do the work?

Sir E. Boyle: I can only repeat that we have taken note of the point which the hon. Member has made.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee on Procedure in the Public Business in this House to report what changes in the practice or procedure of the House are necessary or desirable.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): My noble Friend's proposal has been carefully considered. The last Select Committee on the Procedure of the House sat in 1945 and 1946 and many of its recommendations were put into effect towards the end of 1947. It does not seem that the time has yet arrived for another general inquiry into procedure. However, there are certain matters of procedure to which attention has been drawn recently, and which might well be examined. We propose, therefore, to ask the House to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the practice of moving Amendments on going into Committee of Supply on the Service Estimates, the numbers required for a quorum and for the Closure in Standing Committees, the Constitution of the Scottish Standing Committee, and the question of Money Resolutions. A Motion will be tabled in due course.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that full reply, may I ask if he is aware that there are wider reforms which might be considered or reconsidered? There is, for example, the question of machinery for the control of finance by Parliament on the lines of the memorandum submitted by Lord Campion before the last Select Committee, which was approved of by the Committee. Can my right hon. Friend

hold out the hope that a Committee might be appointed next Session for such wider purposes?

The Prime Minister: I am proposing, as I say, to table a Motion, and we are perfectly ready to hear the views of the House on the Motion when it is tabled. As regards the topic which my noble Friend has raised, there is, of course, existing machinery of all kinds, including such bodies as the Public Accounts Committee, and I would not care to commit myself at this stage. As I say, we are ready to table this Motion and to hear the views of the House. This is a matter for the House; it is not a party matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, broadly speaking, we are in favour of a Select Committee being appointed and are quite agreeable to the topics which he has suggested being included for consideration? As regards the question of financial procedure, would not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this matter was very exhaustively considered by the previous Select Committee, and that it is certainly unusual that another Select Committee of a general kind should be appointed after merely six or seven years?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in the facts he has stated to the House. I think I should tell the House that it is also true that it is rather unusual to have a Select Committee on Procedure so relatively soon after the last one. On the other hand, it did seem to us that there were a number of topics, which I have stated, which might well and usefully be examined. That is why I have suggested the procedure that I have.

Mr. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion of a review of the constitution of the Scottish Standing Committee will be received with very great interest by hon. Members in all parts of the House and, indeed, by public opinion without? Is he aware that, even this morning, it was a matter of great comment that, while we have been able to spend some 23 days on each of two Bills, we were able to spend only half a morning on the subject 'of agriculture, which is of the very greatest interest to a great many hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I was not there, but I am informed that the half-morning would have been regarded by English spectators as a very full morning.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As one of Mr. Speaker's historic duties is to defend the rights of private Members, as a result of which we have established one of our most constitutional rights, will the Prime Minister, before the Motion is finally drawn up, consider consulting Mr. Speaker in order to learn of Mr. Speaker's difficulties?

The Prime Minister: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped, perhaps not wrongly, that the object of this Select Committee would be to ease the working of Parliament and, therefore, not to add unduly, Sir, to your burdens.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the Prime Minister inform the House when we may expect action on the Report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure which sat last year?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give me notice of that question.

Mr. R. Bell: Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to the terms of reference the present need for having a seconder to an Amendment on Report, which wastes a great deal of time?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which can well be raised when the Motion is on the Table.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the trouble with the Scottish Grand Committee is that it is packed with English Members who have offended the Conservative Chief Whip who are sent there as a form of punishment and only come to vote at the end of the morning without having heard the discussion? Could he not arrange for their liquidation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we have viewed the matter quite in that way. I think the hope was that they lent a little helpful support to the decisions of the Committee.

AUTOMATION

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will have an investigation made into the effects of auto-

mation on the same basis as the hearings on automation and technological change before the sub-committee on Economic Stabilisation of the United States Congress Joint Committee on the Economic Report, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent; 
(2) if he will ask the Ministers concerned if they will consult together in a joint conference as soon as possible and meet informed people on automation in order to prepare a policy to meet the needs that will arise and minimise the friction.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and we can always learn from the experience of foreign countries. Rather than set up a formal investigation, however, we are anxious to lose no time in putting to use what we already know about automation. Those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned will be discussing automation with their various advisory bodies. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will shortly be meeting the National Joint Advisory Council. Also, information is being sought from the Engineering Advisory Council and other advisory bodies connected with the engineering industry about the probable adoption of new production techniques and the availability of the necessary special equipment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Prime Minister draw to the attention of those of his right hon. Friends who are to deal with this the evidence given by Walter Reuther? Will he also bear in mind that Clause 12 of the national agreement between engineering employers and the trade unions provides that systematic short time can be worked in preference to discharging men? As our fellow countrymen have made such a great contribution in full employment during the last 15 years, should not they all have the opportunity of sharing in employment when it is available?

The Prime Minister: We have indeed studied the Report referred to in the Question, which, as the hon. Member will know, is referred to in specific terms in the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research which is before the House.

DISARMAMENT (MR. BULGANIN'S LETTER)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in replying to Mr. Bulganin's most recent letter, he will make it clear that Her Majesty's Government supports the reduction of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, France and the United Kingdom now stationed in Germany to an agreed level of equality.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the letter recently sent to him by Mr. Bulganin regarding a new approach to disarmament by the Soviet Government; and what action he proposes to take.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Bulganin's letter of 6th June to me is under consideration. The matters which it raises concern not only this country but also our Allies. I shall not be able to make any further statement until the reply is delivered.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the four Governments referred to in the Question are keeping over 32 divisions stationed in Germany? In view of the existence of what the Prime Minister yesterday called the "ultimate deterrent," does he not consider the time has now arrived when there should be substantial reductions in the number of divisions and in the amount of manpower at present tied up as a result of these dispositions in Germany?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure is far in excess of the facts, because I think it is true that at the moment Soviet forces in East Germany are in excess of the Western forces in West Germany. As I think we have all shown, we all recognise that there are new strategic elements in the situation where the deterrent power is so great. We are alive to that, and are discussing those problems with our Allies, but we want to treat this in such a manner as not in any way to jeopardise the alliances that exist and that we have to keep in mind.

Mr. Gaitskell: In any discussion on this subject with our Allies or with the

Soviet Union, would the Prime Minister bear in mind the desirability of bringing into the picture the reunification of Germany on the basis of free elections? Would he also bear in mind the desirability of considering what effective controls could be established over the armed forces which remain in Germany?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I am not likely to be unmindful of the problem of the reunification of Germany.

Mr. V. Yates: Would the Prime Minister especially note that the letter from Mr. Bulganin states that the Soviet Government regards their withdrawal of 30,000 troops from Germany as only a first step? Does not the Prime Minister think that if the Government would consider making a very substantial reduction in their armed forces in Germany it would make sure that this was a first step and create a better atmosphere, in which general disarmament could be discussed?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to enter into a debate at this time, but it is very arguable as to who makes the first step in these matters. There have been, and there are, very considerable reductions which this country has made in its Armed Forces in general; and they are greatly in excess of the figure here mentioned. What I was saying was that the new situation is one which we shall examine with a desire to secure further progress, if we can.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the figure of 32 divisions, to which I referred, is based on a reply given to me yesterday by the Minister of Defence, when he stated that there were 22 Russian divisions, 5 American divisions and 4 United Kingdom divisions—and he was unable to say how many French divisions—stationed in Germany at the present time?

The Prime Minister: I did not know the right hon. Gentleman was giving the total figure of Russian and Western forces. That is, of course, an interesting way of looking at the problem.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 18TH JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, and a similar Scheme for Scotland.
TUESDAY, 19TH JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY, 21ST JUNE—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Technical Education.
Committee and remaining stages of the Underground Works (London) Bill.
FRIDAY, 22ND JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill; and of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to raise three points. Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that it will be most unreasonable to take the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme Motions after the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Monday, if the debate on the Finance Bill continues to a very late hour? Secondly, would he consider suspending the Standing Order for one hour on Wednesday, when the Report and Third Reading of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill is being discussed? Thirdly, is he aware that on Thursday we propose to take Supply formally, and debate a Motion which we shall put on the Order Paper?

Mr. Butler: I think I can give an accommodating answer to the right hon. Gentleman on all those points. We shall hope to get the Draft Ploughing Grants Schemes, provided the hour is reasonable. On the second point, we agree to a continuation by one hour of the debate; and, on the third point, we understand

that the procedure suggested by the Opposition is that there will be a Motion, which we shall be pleased to debate.

Mr. C. Davies: May I refer the Leader of the House to a Motion, standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members, which refers to the case of Mr. Lang? This is a matter of urgency, which raises the question of personal liberty as well as the security of the State. Could an early date be provided for a debate on this Motion?
[That this House, being gravely concerned both over the efficiency and humanity of the security services in their actions and decisions as evidenced by the case of Mr. Lang, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review again the machinery for dealing with cases which arise outside the Civil Service and to institute a panel of independent judicial advisers to whom the evidence in such cases can be brought for consideration and advice before action is taken so that, as recommended in the findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors, the public may be convinced that the procedures in force will not be exercised unreasonably.]

Mr. Butler: I have the Motion to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers before me. The Minister of Supply gave some answers on this matter which, I should have thought, might have given some indication of the Government's point of view on this matter and the extent of the Government's responsibility. While I agree that the matter is an important one, I cannot at the moment hold out hope of giving time for a debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that we should like to support the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for a debate at an early date on the Motion standing in his name and the names of other hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will examine with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery the possibility of using some of the time which is available to the Opposition for debates.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the all-party Motion. which appeared on the


Order Paper this morning, embodying a tribute to Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served in Egypt? Will he say whether the views expressed therein are sufficiently in line with the views of Her Majesty's Government on the same matter to make any further debate unnecessary?
[That this House, on the occasion of the final evacuation of the Suez Canal Zone by British troops, desires humbly to reaffirm its abiding appreciation of the exemplary devotion to duty shown during three-quarters of a century by all ranks of Her Majesty's Forces in upholding the honour of Great Britain and the sanctity of her covenanted word, in bringing justice, compassion and enrichment to the weak, and in boldly withstanding the assaults of dictatorial Powers; and, more especially, in renewing its homage to the blessed memory of all those of Her Majesty's subjects who have laid down their lives in defence of Egyptian sands and soil, this House earnestly prays that the mutual interests of Great Britain and Egypt may be furthered by truth and cordiality in the years to come.]

Mr. Butler: My hon. and gallant Friend has certainly made it easier for me to reply. I noticed the Motion on the Order Paper, of which notice was given on Wednesday, embodying a tribute to Her Majesty's Forces in the Canal Zone. I am sure that I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the Government when I say that we certainly endorse the tribute given in this Motion, which is of an all-party character, to the services rendered by Her Majesty's Forces, and the homage expressed to the blessed memory of those who lost their lives in the Canal Zone, and endorse the hope for good relations and cordiality between Britain and Egypt in the future.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, say that we, also, would desire to associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed in the Motion?

Mr. C. Davies: May I refer again to my Motion? It is of a far wider character than was indicated by any answer we obtained from the Minister of Supply the other day, which was very limited in its information. Surely this is a matter in which the Government should

provide time for a debate on the broad question of the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Butler: As I said, I do not under-estimate the importance of this subject. My difficulty is a physical one of finding Parliamentary time. If I were to delude the House, I should not do it a service. I do not at the present time see a chance for a debate on this subject, unless it is taken in the manner suggested. But that does not mean that I underrate the principles to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attaches importance.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he will give time for a debate on the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), in my name, and in the names of many of my hon. Friends, on the question of further Commonwealth development?
[That this House, being of the opinion that the development of raw materials throughout the Commonwealth is vital in assisting the balance of payments and is essential to the prosperity of the United Kingdom and of all other countries within the Commonwealth, urges Her Majesty's Government, by achieving an annual economy in national expenditure to make available an amount equal to five per centum of the annual revenue of the United Kingdom for the exclusive purpose of providing facilities of communication, water and power which are essential to such development.]

Mr. Butler: I have been approached about this by some of my hon. Friends and by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is, of course, an important matter, in view of the visit of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and important in itself. I have, however, been obliged to say that I do not at the moment see an opportunity for an early debate. There may be an occasion when we can discuss this matter; if so, we shall bear the Motion in mind.

Mr. Bevan: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Motion to which reference has been made is supported, I believe, by upwards of 250 Members on both sides of the House? There is very great interest now being taken in the development of the physical resources of overseas dependencies, and we ought to have a discussion on this


matter so that we may have an appraisal of our existing opportunities, and know what is happening there.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. As I know well, having attended the Conference in Sydney, Australia, this matter was one which was very much pushed forward; and it is one which is of great interest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I think it certainly would be in the public interest for it to be aired and that an opportunity should be given to show what great resources this island of ours is making available in one way or another for overseas development. But my difficulty is a physical one of finding the time. I do not underestimate the importance of the subject.

Mr. Bevan: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is now a matter of increasing urgency? Money is being made available by the Exchequer which is not, in fact, being invested, and money is also being made available for the development of our resources by other nations. We are not even having a discussion about it in the House of Commons. Would it not be far better for the right hon. Gentleman to allow these matters to be discussed on the Floor of the House much more than they are, and send more of his Bills upstairs?

Mr. Shinwell: Important as are the merits of the subject, is there not something equally, if not more, important here? We have almost 250 Members on both sides of the House appending their signatures to a Motion which they think ought to be debated in the House. At this time, when there is so much talk on both sides of the House about the rights of private Members, how are the rights of private Members to be exercised, if the Government reject the views of private Members to the extent indicated by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Butler: We have given our usual quota of private Members' days, and there is the usual number of Supply days. It certainly is the desire of the Government that as much opportunity as possible should be given to private Members to put their views, because they can then be met by the wisdom of the Government in reply, which gives us a further

opportunity of showing the success of our policies.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that hon. Members on both sides of the House attach very great importance to this subject, and that we hope to have a debate upon it before the House rises in July?

Mr. L. M. Lever: Might I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the all-party Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), and other hon. Members relating to 1914–18 war disability pensioners? Is he aware that the question has now been before the Government for four years? Is it not time that the matter was debated, and, more than that, the pensioners' grievances: were redressed?
Can we have an undertaking that the matter will be put before the House in the next few weeks before the House rises for the Recess, because thousands of these men are dying every day and we want to do something before they are dead and buried?
[That this House, mindful of the great services rendered to the nation by those who lost their limbs or suffered other grievous wounds in the 1914–18 war, and seized of the fact that advancing age has aggravated the disabilities they sustained during their war service, calls upon the Government to make some additional provison, beyond that provided for by the basic disability pension assessments, to compensate them for their increased disabilities and loss of activities and amenities, and therefore, in view of the fact that the average age of these 1914–18 war disability pensioners is now sixty-five years, urges the Government to take immediate action to aid them in their remaining years.]

Mr. Butler: I do not underestimate the sincerity with which the hon. Member has put his case, but I cannot accept it in every detail. Nevertheless, I will look into the request that he has made. The House must remember that this is a very congested time of year, and that it is very difficult to give undertakings on all these subjects which can be carried out.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Might I, Mr. Speaker, ask for your guidance in the matter I referred to earlier?


How are we to exercise our undoubted rights if the Government refuse—this is a very serious matter—to take notice of the wishes of private Members? Will you use what influence you possess to persuade the Government to allow us to debate this very important subject?

Mr. Speaker: I have no influence whatsoever in that quarter. I have not found the right hon. Gentleman slow to exercise the rights of a private Member. I think he is an example to the House as a whole of the way a private Member should behave.

Mr. Simon: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement last week on a matter of great importance relating to the rights of the subject and the administration of justice, namely, affecting the right of the Crown to exclude evidence otherwise relevant from courts of justice. The two bodies most authoritative to speak on this matter, the Bar Council and the Law Society, have made known their views as to the extent of the reforms that are necessary and the method of the reforms, and my noble and learned Friend's reforms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—really do not go very far to meet them. Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an opportunity to discuss the statement?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the importance attached to the question of Crown privilege, but I cannot give any undertaking that we can have a debate in the immediate future. We intend to try to give an opportunity for the subject to be debated, but I cannot guarantee that it will be before the Recess.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the House be told when we are likely to make some further progress with the Coal Industry Bill? Are we to wait until the Government have squared their supporters before the House can give further consideration to it? Who is winning the fight at the moment, the Government or hon. Members opposite below the Gangway?

Mr. Butler: The Government and their supporters are ranged solidly behind the Measure and are awaiting the support of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in order to make further progress.

TRINIDAD OIL COMPANY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the affairs of the Trinidad Oil Company.
As the House is aware, the Texas Oil Company has offered to buy the entire issued ordinary stock of the Trinidad Oil Company. The assent of the Government is required for this transaction and we have now had an opportunity to consider the many and complicated issues involved.
The Trinidad Oil Company Limited has interests in a number of undertakings, of which the most important are the following. First, in Trinidad itself it has oil leases from which it produces just over a million tons of oil a year and a refinery which processes nearly 4 million tons of crude oil a year, including some on behalf of the Texas Company. The products are distributed mainly in the Caribbean area and this country.
The Company has marketing subsidiaries in the Caribbean, in Jamaica, in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Elsewhere in the Caribbean, the Company markets on a 50:50 basis with Shell. It also holds one-third of the shares in Trinidad Northern Areas Limited. This company engages in oil exploration including marine drilling. The other shares are held equally by Shell and British Petroleum interests.
In addition, the Trinidad Oil Company has a 50 per cent. share in the Regent Oil Company Limited, which at present distributes about 6 per cent. of all petroleum products used in the United Kingdom. The other half is owned by Caltex (U.K.) Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the California-Texas Corporation, which, in turn, is owned as to 50 per cent, by the Texas Company and as to 50 per cent. by the Standard Oil Company of California.
Finally, the Trinidad Oil Company owns 89 per cent. of the shares in the Regent Refining (Canada) Company, which is concerned in refining and marketing petroleum products in Canada. This Company's present production of crude oil from its concessions in Alberta is negligible.
As the House will see, the crude oil production of the Trinidad Oil Company is very small—about one-sixth of 1 per cent. of free world oil production. But it represents about one-third of the crude oil production of Trinidad and, with the refinery, constitutes a considerable part of the oil industry there. The Company has stated publicly that it has not the financial resources to maintain its position in an expanding oil world.
In considering this matter, Her Majesty's Government are concerned with the interests both of Trinidad and the United Kingdom. As I informed the House on 7th June, we have been in close touch with the Government of Trinidad on the effect of the proposal on the interests of the island. Prosperity in Trinidad is closely bound up with the oil industry. The Government of Trinidad have made it known that what they want to see is exploration intensified, existing oil resources exploited at the maximum economic rate, and the refinery operated at full economic capacity and, if possible, expanded.
At the same time, they are concerned that the existing established practice in respect of industrial relations should be maintained, that existing personnel should be treated fairly and that as many local men as possible should be trained for high positions. In view of the multiracial character of the community, they are also concerned that there should be no racial discrimination in any of the Company's plants or camps and that the rights of local persons should be respected.
Subject to safeguards on these matters, I am informed that general opinion in Trinidad is in favour of this transaction.
In consequence, Her Majesty's Government are under an obligation not to let this deal go forward without ensuring that the conditions made by the Government of Trinidad are met. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that if we use our powers to prevent the transaction we run the risk of denying great material benefits to the island.
I now come to the interests of the United Kingdom. First, I deal with the need to ensure our oil supplies and to safeguard our balance of payments position. From what I have said about the

production of the Trinidad Oil Company, it will be seen that the supplies which come to us from this source are very small indeed in relation to our total needs.
Moreover, in time of war or national emergency, the Governor of Trinidad has power, under the mining leases, to preempt all oil works and products thereof, and, if necessary, to take entire charge of the works.
As regards the balance of payments, we would, if we permitted this transaction to take place, make it a condition that the marketing operations should be carried on under arrangements comparable with those which we already have with other American oil companies. In this way any oil which comes to the sterling area would continue to be paid for in sterling; at the same time, dollars, would have to be found for profits remitted to the parent company in the United States, while we should not recieve any profits earned and remitted by the Canadian undertaking.
For many years to come, however, all this would be more than counterbalanced by the continued investment which the parent company would have to make both in the United Kingdom and in Trinidad, while, at the same time, of course, we should benefit from the dollars received in the purchase price. We should, of course, lose some tax revenue, but, this can hardly be a determining factor.
If, on the other hand, we were to refuse permission for the transaction, we should, as I have said, be under a moral' obligation to see that the necessary capital was forthcoming to expand the undertaking. The provision of this capital from private sources, even if it could be obtained, would represent a considerable burden on the resources of the United Kingdom, and, since much of the expenditure would be overseas, an additional strain on the balance of payments. The same would apply if the capital came from public funds, and do not think that this could be justified in the present circumstances.
It has been suggested by some that Shell or British Petroleum might be interested in making an alternative offer. As I have explained, the Trinidad Oil Company Limited has a variety of interests,


including producing, refining and marketing. Inasmuch as many of these duplicate undertakings owned by Shell and British Petroleum, it is obvious that the purchase of the Trinidad Oil Company's undertaking as a whole would have no attraction for them.
Thus, if this transaction is considered by itself, the arguments are clearly in favour of our giving permission for it to go through, provided, of course, that the very important conditions mentioned, both those concerning Trinidad and those concerning the United Kingdom, are met.
There are, however, wider considerations. This country is dependent for almost all its raw materials, including oil, on overseas sources. It is also—the two things go hand-in-hand—a major overseas investor. By our investment abroad we have secured for ourselves access to many of the supplies on which our livelihood depends.
This process brings great benefit both to ourselves and to the peoples of the countries where the resources lie waiting to be developed. It does, however, require the willing co-operation of those peoples and it must be a two-way business. British enterprise has built up and is continuing to build up valuable assets overseas, not only in the sterling Commonwealth, but also in North America.
We have also benefited not only in the United Kingdom, but in many parts of the Commonwealth from United States enterprise and capital. If we approach this deal from too narrow a point of view, we not only take upon ourselves the burdens I have mentioned but also expose ourselves to the risk of discrimination against us in other countries.
For these reasons Her Majesty's Government have decided that they are, in principle, willing to give permission for this transaction to go through, subject, of course, to the ordinary law, both here and in Trinidad, being complied with, but more particularly subject to the following conditions and undertakings:
First, that the following specific conditions are complied with in any rearrangement of the present company structure:

(a) the marketing operations are carried on under arrangements satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, on a basis comparable with those already

existing with other American oil companies;
(b) the production and refining operations in Trinidad are carried on by a company registered in Trinidad.

Secondly, that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Trinidad receive satisfactory undertakings on the following matters:

(a) the Trinidad refinery is operated at full economic capacity and, if possible, expanded;
(b) exploration in Trinidad is intensified;
(c) existing oil resources in Trinidad are exploited on the basis of sound operating practice at the maximum economic rates;
(d) industrial relations are maintained on the basis of existing and established practice;
(e) there is fair treatment of existing personnel and training of as many local men as possible to take high positions in the Company;
(f) there is no racial discrimination in any of the Company's plant or camps and the rights of local persons are respected.

In view of the complicated nature of the interests involved, which cannot be given in detail in a statement—even in a statement of this length or any reasonably short statement—Her Majesty's Government will lay a White Paper setting out the factual basis on which their decision has been reached.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Chancellor's statement will be received with dismay in more than one part of the House and in all parts of the country. Is it not clear from the figures which he has quoted that the real bait in this transaction is not oil production in Trinidad but the very big prospect of expansion in Canada, which he is surrendering, and, even more, the desire of another American oil interest to get a still bigger grip on the internal United Kingdom market for petrol distribution?
Are not the size of the take-over bid and the very large tax-free capital gains made on the Stock Exchange in the past fortnight an indication of the profits it expects to be able to make at the expense of the British consumer? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to


the House that this decision, which, I understand, is so far a decision in principle which has not yet taken effect, will not be put into effect until the House as a whole has had an opportunity, not only of considering the White Paper, but of debating all the issues involved?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, whether, in my opinion, the attraction of this purchase to the purchasers is not so much the oil in Trinidad or the prospects of the extraction of more oil in Trinidad but, perhaps, the possibility of large developments in Canada and, secondly, the share in the distributive market in the United Kingdom. I agree that the oil production, present or potential, in Trinidad is very small compared with the production of the great oil fields. On the other hand, it is very important for Trinidad.
I think that what is also attractive is the possibility of the new owners using the refinery to a greater extent than the present company is able to do because it will refine, especially if it is expanded, oil brought either from the United States or from Venezuela. It is already doing 4 million tons as against 1 million of local production, and that is, of course, no doubt an attraction to a company of the size of the Texas Company. It is for a company of the size of the Trinidad Oil Company difficult to expand it. That is possibly one attraction in Trinidad.
As regards the Canadian attraction, I would not have said the possibility of large development of oil production in Canada in the hands of Trinidad Oil could be very large. It is not the practice to give the proportions of the money which we have authorised to be spent in that kind of development, but I told the House the other day that about 100 million dollars has been authorised for oil development and the registering of claims, and so forth, in Canada from British sources. Of that, I can say without unfairness that less than one-twelfth has been on behalf of this company, and far the greater part, of course, by Shell and the British Petroleum.
There is no difficulty at all in obtaining in Canada possibilities of developing. There was plenty of operation open. It was limited, if at all, by the amount of dollars which we are able to provide

from our resources to the large British prospectors. This is tiny compared with the work being done by Shell and B.P. in Canada and, therefore, I do not quite agree that this is the attraction.
I agree that it is no doubt the possibility of acquiring the other 50 per cent. —it already owns 50 per cent.—of the Regent distributing agency here which is attractive to the purchaser, but the fact that it is attractive to the purchaser means that it is not attractive to anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] As the only two potential purchasers, the B.P. and Shell organisations already have 60 per cent. of the distribution in England.
If the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) speaks of the protection of the British consumer, what would he have said had I encouraged B.P. or Shell to buy this and to create something like a monopoly of the distribution? The only people who could have bought it would have been either B.P. or Shell. First, it would have been a very uneasy partnership, with 50 per cent. of the shares belonging to B.P. and 50 per cent. to Caltex. It would have been a very difficult partnership to operate. The only possible object of buying it would be to close it and create something like a monopoly position, because there is no purpose in B.P. and Shell, with their great expertise in the distribution of petroleum products in the United Kingdom, having this company, which at present does only 6 per cent. of the work.

Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of order. Are we in the course of a full-length debate, with speeches of considerable length, or was the Chancellor answering a supplementary question?

Mr. Macmillan: I was trying to answer the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Huyton, because it raised the three main features of the difficulties. If I have been long in answering, I apologise, but these are the three major points of the dispute. It is not for me to say when a debate shall take place. I want to make clear what I have done. I have indicated to those who wish to be the vendors the conditions, which I have read to the House, which Her Majesty's Government will insist upon before any negotiations can be concluded.

Sir B. Baxter: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is a moment when the voice of Canada, not merely a Canadian, should be heard? Is he aware that there is now in London a Cabinet Minister from the Ontario Government? He happened to lunch with me today. This Cabinet Minister said, "The policy of the big oil interests of the United States is to achieve a monopolistic control of the natural oil in the English-speaking world, which can create a stranglehold on the industrial development of the Commonwealth."

Mr. Macmillan: I should like to make clear that it would be quite improper, of course, for a British Government to correspond with any Government except the Federal Dominion Government of Canada on what is clearly a Federal matter. It was just for that reason—and, to answer the complaint of dilatory methods, it was necessary to take a week to settle this question, and a week is not a very long time—that I thought it right to inform the Canadian Government of all that is going on.

Mr. Snow: When the Chancellor says that public opinion in Trinidad appears to be largely in favour of this sale, what does he mean by public opinion and how has it been ascertained? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Tories give away the Commonwealth at this rate there will be nothing left of it in 10 years?

Mr. Macmillan: The method of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, with whom, of course, I have been in consultation all through, was to consult the Governor and the Government of Trinidad. The Government, I understand, has elected members and so is a body, I believe—and I do not want to enter into details—which is likely to move into larger spheres of self-government. It is for that reason that I had thought it very important that we should not appear to be forcing our views, contrary to the interests of the people of Trinidad.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from the merits of the general proposal, we on this side of the House are delighted that one of the conditions attached to the transfer is the maintenance of no racial discrimination among the employees, because this is not merely a transfer of a

piece of property but of a large number of human beings from the control of one lot of people to that of another lot of people? In any articles drawn up afterwards, will there be a firm clause written into the contracts so as to protect the people there from racial discrimination?

Mr. Macmillan: There are these general undertakings. How exactly they will be written into a precise contract I have, of course, to study. The real protection is the second demand, the requirement that the company shall be a company registered in Trinidad. That gives a tremendously strong position to the Government of Trinidad because it is a Trinidad company which must conform to Trinidad law. It is a registered company of Trinidad. That is an absolute condition. Secondly, any present lease can be transferred only to the new company if and when a new company comes into being, and the Government have a right to renew a lease as they think fit and make all kinds of conditions in it.

Mr. Maclay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however much we regret the fact that this problem in its existing form ever arose, had the decision announced in principle today been in the opposite sense it would have been very disturbing to many of us because of the possible implications to the future rapid development of the Commonwealth and the under-developed parts of the world?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Chancellor aware that, in our opinion, this is a matter which must be debated at the earliest possible opportunity and, in particular, before an absolutely final decision has been taken? May I, therefore, ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an undertaking that we can debate this next week? May I suggest respectfully that the debate might take a half-day, the other half-day being on the Motion dealing with the Lang case in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)?

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that we had better discuss this through the usual channels, because I have had no notice whatsoever of a debate on the Lang case except from the Leader of the Liberal Party today. On this matter, I quite understand that the Opposition will wish to read the White Paper first, before hon. and right hon. Members opposite make


up their minds fully on the question, so as to he prepared for a debate. It is, therefore, quite reasonable that we should discuss this proposition. Meanwhile, I reserve the position and note the wish of the Opposition to have a debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is not good enough. My remarks about the Lang case were a mere suggestion. The Opposition are of the opinion that there must be a debate very soon indeed, before a final decision has been taken by the Government. There is not the slightest doubt, from the questions put so far, that many suggestions will be made to the Government on this issue, which might be very important for them to bear in mind in further negotiations. Therefore, I must ask the Lord Privy Seal again whether he will not agree that we can debate this matter next week and whether he will make the necessary changes in Government business to make that possible.

Mr. Butler: I have made the only offer that I can make in the circumstances, and that is to discuss this immediately with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels. Naturally, we will attempt to meet the wishes of the Opposition for a debate on a matter to which the House attaches great importance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has apparently commmunicated the general principle of the Cabinet decision on this matter to the company, make it clear to that company that Her Majesty's Government are subject to the control of the House of Commons, and that whatever has been communicated in principle will not become established fact until the House of Commons has given its approval to what the Government have in mind?

Mr. Macmillan: I want it to be quite clear. I have not been, and I do not intend to be, in any negotiations with the Texas Company. An application is made under existing law for the sale of shares in an existing company. That is merely a matter, ordinarily, of exchange control, but, since it was obvious that it would probably be the next step of the purchasers to wish to change the character of the company—to transfer some assets here and some to another

company—I thought it right to make a statement. I shall send, immediately after this statement here, to the vendors a statement to say that, in any negotiations which they may have, these are the conditions—and the only conditions—on which I will give permission under exchange control.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Chancellor whether he is aware that the statement he made just now does not meet the wishes not only of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but, I believe, of the whole House? Will he give an undertaking that, whatever he communicates to the Company, he will also communicate that the decision of the Government is subject to debate in and final approval of this House?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I think that this is an administrative act. If the Government do not have the support of the House of Commons, then, of course, a new situation would arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Certainly. I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have held positions like this know that it must be the right thing to make a decision, and then the decision of the Government is either upheld or overthrown.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can carry this further. We are a long way behind the clock today.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has attempted to speak for the whole of the House, when he had no right to do so, because at least half a dozen hon. Members on this side of the House wished to put constructive questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and did not get the opportunity to do so. May I ask, in the circumstances, Sir, whether hon. Members on this side can have an opportunity of putting those questions?

Mr. Speaker: What we are having now is not a debate. We have had a statement, and there were some questions upon it. I must be given a discretion as to how long that process shall go on. No doubt, this matter will be debated at another stage, when there will be plenty of opportunities for hon. Members to make their points. There is no point of order at all in what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Peyton: There is a point on which I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. An important statement of Government policy has been made, and a great many remarks about it, and objections, have been made from the other side of the House while no hon. Member on this side has had the slightest chance of expressing his view on the statement.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter), and I also called the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), so that is not true. I have to be given a discretion in conducting these matters.

BILL PRESENTED

CROWN ESTATE

Bill to provide for the reconstitution of the Commissioners of Crown Lands under the name of the Crown Estate Commissioners; to transfer to the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State certain powers of the Treasury under section thirty-two of the Crown Lands Act, 1851, in its application to the said Commissioners, and to make new provision as to the annual report of the said Commissioners; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Heathcoat Amory; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, Major Lloyd-George, and Mr. James Stuart; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

As amended (in Committee and on recommittal) further considered.

Clause 18.—(RULES AS TO PROCEDURE.)

4.15 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft): I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out "by the Registrar" and to insert "to the Court".

This Amendment is really consequential on earlier discussions. It envisages the possibility, now incorporated in the Bill, of application being made to the Court by one of the parties.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 17, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(d) for enabling the Court to make an order for the payment by any party of costs in respect of proceedings in which he is guilty of unreasonable delay, or in respect of any improper, vexatious. prolix or unnecessary proceedings.
This enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules empowering the Restrictive Practices Court to award costs in certain cases against dilatory parties. The position about costs is set out in the Schedule, and, normally, in this Court, it is not intended that costs should follow the event. I think that is right. We discussed this matter on other occasions. All these cases, in principle, will eventually be brought forward; and I think it would be quite wrong for large costs to be awarded for or against the Registrar. or for or against a party, when what is happening here is simply that certain arrangements are being examined to see whether or not they are against the public interest in accordance with the criteria which have been laid down by Parliament.
There is a special problem here, and this Amendment is limited to dealing with it. It arises where, say, in interlocutory proceedings, one party may be dilatory in producing documents or the like, and it might well be that the delay by that party could hold up the whole of the proceedings, with general damage to everybody else concerned. A suggestion that some power should be given to the Court to


award costs against a party in circumstances of that kind was made during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks). We have given consideration to it, we think that the suggestion is well founded, and we have accordingly tabled this Amendment, which we commend to the House.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I understand that what the President is trying to do here is that, whereas there is to be no set or conventional rule of court about costs in this matter, which I understand is the President's interpretation of the provisions of the Bill, he nevertheless wants to be certain that any party who unduly delays the proceedings or holds up the proceedings should have a warning of penal consequences, and the penal consequence would be the question of costs. The measure of the costs would be the measure of the delay, and I understand that that is the simple effect of this provision.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I put one point to the right hon. Gentleman? Are the costs in question only the costs of the Registrar, or may any other parties who may have been put to unnecessary expense also claim their costs against the dilatory party?

Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: I should like to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for having met the point which I raised, and, as I must confess, having met it much more successfully than is done by my own attempt, which appears later on the Notice Paper in an Amendment to the Schedule. The point here is an important one. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that we do not want to mulct any party to the proceedings automatically with the costs of all the parties to the proceedings, which might be a substantial amount, but there might nevertheless be times when the ability of the Court to award costs would be of real value.
If there are, as is likely, proceedings to which there are thirty parties because they are all parties to the agreement, and those proceedings in which all the parties are represented are deliberately or wilfully or carelessly held up by one party, so that owing to the dilatoriness of that one party the other twenty-nine are put to

unnecessary expense, the only thing which the Court can do under the Bill as it stands is to commit that party for contempt of court, and imprison him.
We would all agree that that is not the way we want to begin the history of this Court. Therefore, we were keen to provide some alternative sanction on the part of the judge to enable him to maintain proper discipline amongst the parties without having to resort to drastic steps. I believe that this Amendment achieves that purpose. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I support him.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I put another point, by leave of the House? I apprehend that this provision will not come under the ordinary rules of the court about costs. Would the President bear in mind that it is not necessarily a question of party and party costs, but might be a question of solicitor and own client costs, which may be an important point?

Mr. Frederick Mulley: May I put the position, as I understand it, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm it? As I interpret the matter, unless there are special circumstances as indicated in this Amendment, there will be no order as to costs, and each party before the Court will pay his own costs. If there are these special circumstances, the Court will decide whether there are to be solicitor and client costs or party and party costs.
My other point is that I anticipate that the proceedings before the High Court on matters covered by the Bill will follow the ordinary rule about costs going with the event. Or is it proposed that there will be some special arrangement for the proceedings under this Bill in the High Court?
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(PROHIBITION OF AGREEMENTS FOR COLLECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS AS TO RESALE PRICES.)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 18, line 6, after "out", to insert:
or to seek directly or indirectly to give effect to or by any method whatsoever to enforce or secure the performance of

Mr. Speaker: It occurs to me that this Amendment might be discussed with the next Amendment in the name of the hon.


Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), in page 18, line 6, at the end to insert:
(whether any such agreement or arrangement has been made by such persons or others)".

Mr. Fletcher: I agree, Sir, that it would be convenient if the two Amendments were discussed together, just as they were during the Committee stage. In effect, they deal with precisely the same point because, as Clause 19 is constructed, the first part deals with supplies and the second part deals with dealers.
We had a substantial debate on this matter during the Committee stage. The House will recollect that we on these benches regard this Clause, and indeed all of Part II, as being in many respects the crux of the Bill. That is because it is in Part II that the Government are seeking to give effect to the majority recommendation of the Monopolies Commission for the total prohibition of collective resale price maintenance.
We welcome that decision, but our criticisms of the text of the Bill are directed to improving it because, as we pointed out in Committee, we do not think it goes far enough. The Government have professed their intention of prohibiting totally collective resale price maintenance, and these Amendments have been put down again on the Report stage because, at the end of the Committee stage, the President of the Board of Trade, who appeared to have been impressed with the suggestions we made to him, gave an undertaking in response to suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and myself that he would examine before the Report stage the suggestions we had made.
In fact, the President said that the Amendment which I am now moving would be the test of many things. I agree entirely with that observation. Indeed, we think that these Amendments are the acid test of the sincerity of the Government in taking the necessary steps effectively to prohibit collective resale price maintenance in this country.
You will observe, Sir, that, as the Royal Commission pointed out, there have been hitherto four major methods by which resale price maintenance is enforced in this country. There is the

collective boycott, there is the stop list, there are the private courts, and there is the prohibition of entry into trade associations. There may be various minor methods—indeed, there may be some methods which have not yet been discovered—by which collective resale price maintenance is enforced. The only specific condemnation in Clause 19 as it stands is of the collective boycott. There is no express condemnation either of the stop list or of the private court, still less of the very potent sanction of joining a trade association or withholding the right to join such an association.
In our previous discussions, and particularly during the Second Reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary excused the absence of what we regard as necessary provisions by saying that, by implication, the stop list and the private court were banned. Indeed, he said that if we had any doubt about it we need only regard the observations of the traders to see what they thought about it. However, we were not satisfied. We think that, if the Government are serious in this matter, they should by express provision prohibit every possible method by which, after this Measure has been passed, directly or indirectly, collective resale price maintenance may emerge within the sanction of the law.
Therefore, the object of the Amendment is to provide specifically that it should be an offence under the Act if traders seek directly or indirectly to give effect to, or by any method whatsoever seek to enforce or secure the enforcement of, the activity which it is our intention to prohibit.
4.30 p.m.
It would be churlish not to say that in a moment we shall be considering a series of Amendments which have been put down by the President of the Board of Trade as a result of suggestions which we made to him in Committee. For example, I observe that he has Amendments in page 18, to lines 8, 15, 19, 21, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 39 which are no doubt designed by him to give effect to the suggestions which we made. He has introduced specific words which, for example, prohibit the stop list and the private court and many of the other obnoxious methods by which in the past collective resale price maintenance has been carried on and which have been so universally condemned by public opinion.
It would be churlish not to express our gratitude for his conversion to our point of view and it would not be understandable if we were not to claim the credit for having succeeded in our efforts considerably to improve the draftsmanship of this all-important Clause. Without in any way wishing to be patronising, I am sure that I am speaking for all my hon. Friends in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has gone a long way in his efforts to meet us. For example, in page 18, line 27, he has substituted—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are discussing only two Amendments at the moment. The others will come later.

Mr. Fletcher: That is perfectly right. We are discussing only two Amendments, but it is impossible effectively to criticise those two Amendments, without making some oblique comments on the subsequent Amendments which the President will agree are designed to carry out the intention we had in mind in putting down these Amendments. If the President of the Board of Trade thinks that his Amendments have any other object, he will no doubt say so, but it is necessary to refer to them to sustain the argument which I wished to address to the House to show why, satisfactory as they are to the extent to which they go, they do not go far enough.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If we can have a list of the Amendments to be discussed now, when we come to them we need not discuss them again.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade will agree, but no doubt he will be moving the Amendments in page 18, lines 6, 8, 15, 19, 21, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 39. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those Amendments are put down because of the criticism which we made in Committee. They are his attempts to meet the points we then made. It is necessary to refer to them only in order to point out that, satisfactory as they are to the extent to which they go, they do not go far enough to meet our criticism. I do not know whether it would be convenient to mention them now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is that the wish of the House? I am in the hands of the House. Am I to understand that when we get to those Amendments, they will not be discussed then?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is making more than a passing reference to these matters. It is entirely a matter for the convenience of the House, but I think that what he would wish to do is to take merely the two Amendments we are now discussing. If he wishes to deal with the others at the same time, we could quickly pass on and deal with them en bloc. Perhaps it would make for a tidier debate if we handled it in that way.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: We are concerned only to save time. I do not want to take up time by making a speech on not taking up time. It would be convenient if we could deal with the Amendments altogether and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could put them formally without further debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly, as long as I understand what is happening.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that you will not misunderstand me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I say that no one will guarantee that anyone will understand what is happening in this House. One can only do one's best. As an illustration, we put down an Amendment in page 18, line 6, to introduce the words:
(whether any such agreement or arrangement has been made by such persons or others)
as the Bill in its original form did not meet the case that there might be third parties to an agreement who would seek to enforce it.
There might be trade associations which had nothing to do with the agreement, but which, nevertheless, had very real power in securing the observance of an agreement which was bad in itself. Unless there were some such words to impose sanction on persons not parties to an agreement, the agreement could nevertheless be enforced. The President of the Board of Trade has thought it more desirable to introduce precisely these words in line 21 where he wants to insert:
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)


I have very carefully examined the right hon. Gentleman's drafting, and on that point his Amendment is as good as mine. It meets the point and I am very glad to find that as a result of the suggestions we have made the right hon. Gentleman has gone a very long way to improve the Clause and to close the many gaps and loopholes in it which we exposed in Committee.
Having said that, it is necessary to add that we still do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. If he is really serious, as we hope that he will be, in meeting our claim that every gap and loophole should be closed in this attempt to prohibit collective resale price maintenance and its enforcement in any way whatsoever, whether the method has been used in the past or not, it is necessary that in line 6 there should be really effective words prohibiting any attempt directly or indirectly to give effect to the agreement which is being prohibited.
I cannot understand why that simple Amendment has not been accepted. The President, it is true, is prepared to put in the Bill words which, as I understand them, are designed to make it impossible for there to appear again those secret trade courts which have been such a serious menace to traders and caused so much victimisation, not only to persons who have made agreements, but also to persons who have not made agreements, but who have, by these clandestine methods, been prevented from carrying on an honest trade and earning an honest living.
There are still other ways by which attempts may be made to enforce collective resale price maintenance, unless we are careful. There is, for example, the very potent weapon of withholding membership from a trade association. Everybody knows how valuable in a great many industries it is that there should be that membership and one knows of the hardships and penalties which are imposed on persons who are excluded from that membership. We think, therefore, that it is essential to have written into the Bill not only the additional safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman, at our suggestion, is accepting, but also the omnibus provision—
or seek directly or indirectly to give effect

to these vicious practices which are now being condemned. It is for those reasons that I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to second the Amendment.
The President of the Board of Trade, when this matter was discussed in Committee, expressed himself as being attracted by the proposal to deal with
… the case where one group of people is seeking to enforce someone else's arrangement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1956; Vol. 552. c. 1023.]
The Amendment so comprehensively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) would deal unmistakably with that case. I cannot see in any of the Amendments which the President has put down that that case is dealt with. It is surely perfectly plain that the Amendment in line 8, after "dealers" to insert:
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)
goes no distance at all towards the object which we have in mind.
What is prohibited under the Bill is an agreement between suppliers for certain purposes. The question whether or not the dealers who are affected by the agreement are parties to it is quite secondary to the loophole which we, in the Committee stage, were endeavouring to stop up. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to be good enough to say what is the correct position. Is it that, having investigated the proposals to which he said he was attracted, he has come to the conclusion that they are not well-founded, or is there somewhere else, in the Amendments put down by the Government, an Amendment which meets this point?
If there is one thing which is perfectly clear about the Bill it is that the moment it becomes law there will at once be any number of attempts made by all kinds of people in all sorts of quarters to discover ways round, under and through its provisions. I should have thought that it was a very likely event that one trade association would come to the aid of another trade association to enforce the first association's agreements. It seems to me that there is a loophole in that part of the Bill.
I would add only one sentence to what my hon. Friend has said on the other


point. It appears that there is an Amendment to deal with the case of the stop list as one of the methods available to enforce collective price maintenance, so that takes its place with the collective boycott in the matters specifically dealt with by the Bill. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, exclusion from a trade association does not come into that category and is nowhere subsequently dealt with, and so long as that is so, it would seem that there is an obvious defect in the Bill in that respect.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It may be convenient if I mention the Amendments additional to the two which we are discussing with which I wish to deal. They are in page 18, lines 6, 8, 15, 19, 21, 27, 29, 34, 35. 36, and 39. I think that it would be convenient if I dealt with these as a block.
As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, the object is to tauten and strengthen Clause 19, and the inspiration is derived from speeches from both sides of the House, and not least the hon. Gentleman's own eloquence during the Committee stage. I make no apology for that. It is part of the job of the House of Commons that we should get ideas and criticism from all sides and try to interpret them as best we can.
It would be tempting to get out of one's difficulty by putting in words like "directly or indirectly," but I have been told, having studied this matter very carefully with my advisers, that those words would add absolutely nothing to the Bill. They would neither strengthen it nor alter it. They would not alter the words "carry out" in any way whatsoever. So we cannot get rid of our difficulties or answer the criticism which the hon. Gentleman himself made quite as simply as that, and we have to get down to the rather harder task of trying to spell out in the Bill just precisely what is intended in order to stop any loophole that may exist by explicit provisions laid down by statute. So we have tabled these Amendments.
Our object is to prohibit the collective enforcement of retail price maintenance. Of course, any manufacturer can withhold his own goods but he cannot agree with other people to withhold his goods

or their goods. The addition of the words "by which they undertake"— which is the first Government Amendment—make it plain that two or more persons must be doing the enforcement if they are to be within the mischief of this Clause.
That brings me to the rather difficult problem of the wholesaler. An agreement by a wholesaler not to sell the manufacturer's goods to price cutters is outside the scope of the Bill. It is outside the scope of the Bill because it is a mere extension of the manufacturers' own right not to sell his goods to price cutters. Subsection (3, b) is, therefore, unnecessary, and we propose to delete it. It reads:
a contract for the sale of any goods which relates exclusively, to those goods.
It is plain that this subsection is not necessary because such an agreement was not covered by the earlier subsection.
What we must prevent, however, is the case of a ring maintaining its prices by electing to sell through a single wholesaler. The first three lines of the proposed new paragraph (c), which catches that particular case, read:
to supply goods only to persons who undertake or have undertaken to withhold supplies of goods, or to refuse to supply goods, as aforesaid …
There are a few additional Amendments. The addition of the words in brackets, to which the hon. Member referred,
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)
makes it plain that the collective boycott of retailers cannot be used, even if they are members of the agreement.
The remaining portion of the new paragraph (c) spells out in terms which are perfectly plain that the fine and the private court are not permitted. It is, I think, true to say that they would probably fall under the provisions of the Bill, because there would be no basis upon which they could be sustained; but I do not propose to argue that point again now. The fact is that we have preferred to spell out the fact that in this connection, the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance, the fine and the private court are not permitted. I think it is better to put that absolutely plainly in the Clause.
Lastly, there is the redraft of subsection (4), to which I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I am not relying on the earlier wording
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)
but the redraft of subsection (4), which goes a little further than the original wording, makes it clear that it is unlawful for either a trader by himself or an association to recommend the withholding of supplies, no matter to whom the recommendation is made. That is to say, if an association elects—or is used—to come forward and by its recommendations to seek collectively to enforce resale price maintenance over another area—such examples can be found or thought of—that is caught as well.
In sum, that is the effect of the Amendments. I am not saying that one can ever be completely satisfied that one has stopped up every loophole or dealt with every possible form of evasion, but I consider these Amendments to be a substantial advance on the Clause as originally drafted. I am very much indebted to Members on all sides of the House for the suggestions which they have made, which have helped us in preparing Amendments of this kind. If the Amendments are adopted it will be a much better Clause, and I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the proposed subsection (4) is designed to deal with the case of one trade association enforcing a restrictive agreement which is entered into by another. Would he not agree that the fact that the sanction there is confined to recommendations by that other enforcing trade association very much limits its effect when the enforcing trade association has the power, not merely to recommend in such a matter, but to compel action under its own rules?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are only two ways in which it could effect the enforcement. One would be by withholding supplies, in which case it would be caught anyway; there would be no trouble about that. The difficulty that the hon. Member pointed out before, which is a very real point, is that there could be cases

where, although those concerned have no real connection with the business, recommendations might be made to seek to persuade others not to cut their prices. There could be cases of that kind. If people are withholding goods, surely they must clearly be caught by the Clause as at present drafted.

Mr. Douglas Jay: We shall certainly not resist the Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade is proposing. They are an admission of the validity of our criticism, not merely in Committee but also on Second Reading, that the alleged ban on collective resale price maintenance was not complete. At that stage, the Parliamentary Secretary ridiculed that criticism, but the President has really admitted it.
We said that it was not sufficient to prohibit enforcement by a collective boycott. What the President is now saying is that he is attempting, by his Amendments, to prohibit collective enforcement of any kind, whether by boycott or in some other way. He has chosen to do it because he thinks the only possible way of doing it is by spelling out all the possible forms of collective enforcement that there might be and prohibiting them eo nomine, as the late Sir Stafford Cripps used to say, in the wording of the amended Bill; and we accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments.
We still make the criticism of the Bill, however, that we should have preferred to make it perfectly plain, as we have attempted to do, perhaps not ideally, in our Amendment, that collective resale price maintenance enforced collectively by any method should, beyond question, be prohibited by the Bill.
The trouble about the President's method of spelling out each of these devices is that in perhaps a year, or two or three years, after the passing of the Bill, a trade association or possibly a lawyer will think of a method which has not yet occurred to the President. Therefore, we are not entirely satisfied. Although we think that the President's method is an improvement, and while supporting his Amendments, we shall, in order to establish the principle of the complete ban, nevertheless continue to press our own Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 240.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[4.57 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Grimond, J.
Parker, J.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace
Randall, H. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holt, A. F.
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Boyd, T. C.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, R. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Clunie, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Straohey, Rt. Hon. J.


Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Cronin, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Thornton, E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Mahon, Simon
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Usborne, H. C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)
Messer, Sir F.
West, D. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Monslow, W.
Wigg, George


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Willey, Frederick


Fienburgh, W.
Moss, R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Finch, H. J.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Fletcher, Eric
Mulley, F. W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Braine, B. R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Armstrong, C. W.
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Ashton, H.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Atkins, H. E.
Biroh, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Burden, F. F. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Black, C. W.
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)


Balniel, Lord
Body, R. F.
Campbell, Sir David


Barber, Anthony
Boothby, Sir Robert
Carr, Robert




Cary, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W, M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pott, H. P.


Crouch, R. F.
Hyde, Montgomery
Powell, J. Enoch


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, J. D.


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ramsden, J. E.


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.


Dodds-Parker, A, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridsdale, J. E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rippon, A. G. F.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Keegan, D.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, H. W.
Robertson, Sir David


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kershaw, J. A.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kimball, M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duthie, W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Leather, E. H. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&amp;L'm'tn)
Leburn, W. G.
Sharpies, R. C.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Errington, Slr Eric
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Speir, R. M.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, MaJ, Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Foster, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Freeth, D. K.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Godber, J. B.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thompson,Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Gower, H. R.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Green, A.
Maddan, Martin
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horricastle)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harrison, Col, J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mathew, R.
Vosper, D. F.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maude, Angus
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mawby, R. L.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Head, Rt. Hon. A, H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moison, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Webbe, Sir H.


Hicks-Beech, Maj. W. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.



Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Horobin, Sir Ian
Page, R. G.
Mr. Wills and Mr.Bryan.

Amendments made: In page 18, line 6, at end insert "by which they undertake".

In line 8, after "dealers", insert:
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)".

In line 15, at end insert:
(c) to supply goods only to persons who undertake or have undertaken to withhold supplies of goods, or to refuse to supply goods, as aforesaid,

or any agreement or arrangement authorising the recovery of penalties (however described) by or on behalf of the parties to the agreement from dealers who resell or have resold goods in breach of any such condition as is described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or the conduct of any domestic proceedings in connection therewith.

In line 19, at end insert "by which they undertake".

In line 21, after "suppliers", insert:
(whether party to the agreement or arrangement or not)".

In line 27, at end insert:
or any agreement or arrangement authorising the recovery of penalties (however described) by or on behalf of the parties to the agreement or arrangement from such suppliers, or the conduct of any domestic proceedings in connection therewith".

In line 29, leave out from first "to" to end of line.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, to leave out "persons" and insert "individuals".
This Amendment is really consequential, in the sense that it raises precisely the same point as that to which the House agreed yesterday, in an Amendment in page 6, line 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
In line 35, at end insert:
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person carrying on business in the United Kingdom as a supplier of or dealer in any goods to make to any other person carrying on business as aforesaid any recommendation to act in such a manner that, if there were an agreement between those persons so to act, the agreement would be unlawful by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section.
In line 36, leave out from "association" to "as" in line 38 and insert:
the members of which consist of or include persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom as suppliers of or dealers in any goods or representatives of such persons".
In line 39, leave out from "business" to end of line 45.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft]

Mr. Reader Harris: I beg to move, in page 19, line 13, at the end to insert:
(8) This section shall come into force on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven.
The reason for the Amendment is that Clause 32 states that the Bill will come into force as an Act one month after the Royal Assent. I assume that the Royal Assent will be given about the end of July, and that would mean that the Bill will come into force towards the end of August. I can well imagine the desire of the President of the Board of Trade to get things moving under Part I. I can imagine that he will want

to get ahead with the appointment of the Registrar and the setting up of the Restrictive Practices Court. It may well be that under Part III, also, he wants to get ahead with the reorganisation of the Monopolies Commission.
I think that it would be very unfair to traders, trade associations and industrialists, however, if the Clause were to come into force within one month of the Royal Assent. The effect of Part II is to do away with the enforcement of collective resale price maintenance and to substitute therefor individual price maintenance. This will mean that a great deal of discussion will have to go on between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, through their respective trade associations, and it will obviously be very difficult for all that to be done in the space of a month, especially having regard to the fact that that month is August, when many people are away on holiday.
It may be, as a result of those discussions, that manufacturers will desire to alter their conditions of sale. Many such conditions may apply to contracts which run over a 12-month period and many may expire on 31st December. I think it only fair that, before the guillotine falls on the collective enforcement of price maintenance, there should be an adequate period for the victims to prepare themselves.

Mr. Arthur Holt: They have had all this year.

Mr. Harris: It is not true to say that they have had all this year. Until the Bill has gone through its final stages, no one knows what the final form will be Although discussions may have started in many places, they cannot get going in earnest until after this Measure has been to another place. It would be unfair to expect collective enforcement agreements to be brought to an end within one month after the passing of the Bill and, therefore, this Amendment has been put down suggesting that this Section come into force from 1st January, 1957. I do not stick rigidly to that date, but I think it fair that there should be three or four months grace. I hope that the President will come some way towards meeting that request.

Mr. George Darling: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to second the Amendment?

Mr. G. Darling: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then I call Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, to move the Amendment in Clause 22, in page 20, line 32, to leave out from first "Commission" to the end of the Clause.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Amendment to Clause 20, in page 19, line 35 and ask whether it has been overlooked? It is an extremely important Amendment dealing with the co-operative societies. It deals with a vitally important principle whether the Court should be made to enforce price maintenance arrangements which discriminate against persons who use the dividend system of payment, including, in particular, the co-operative societies. It is a matter of enormous public importance affecting 11 million people in the cooperative societies alone, and there are also the agricultural co-operatives which are involved.
We have had only one debate on this issue during the proceedings on the Bill, whereas other matters have been canvassed during Second Reading and so on. We concentrated the whole matter in one comparatively short debate. We attach the greatest importance to this matter and desire an opportunity to discuss that Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before you address yourself to what has fallen from the lips of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do I understand that we are now dealing with the Amendment in page 19, line 24? It has not actually been moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. Before anything further is said, that Amendment must be disposed of. I am afraid that I missed it.

Clause 20.—(INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEMENT BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONDITIONS AS TO RESALE PRICES.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, to leave out "by retail purchase" and to insert
otherwise than for the purpose of resale in the course of business".

There is nothing to this Amendment, other than that it makes clear that the exemption from legal proceedings applies only to a genuine retail purchase made
otherwise than for the purpose of resale in the course of business.
It meets points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and other hon. Members.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I now, with respect, pursue the point of order which was interrupted by the intervention of the Parliamentary-Secretary? I was mentioning the importance which we attach to the Amendment to Clause 20, in page 19, line 35, which seeks to insert:
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of a trader to provide a discount for his customers based on purchases and payable not more frequently than once in three months.
I understand that Amendment is not being called. I was explaining the importance which we attach to it and pressing to have the matter discussed at this stage. I will not repeat the speech I made before the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you bear in mind that already the information that this Amendment will not be called has got to certain quarters and, in view of its vital importance, there is deep concern. Will you give some guidance and, if it is not to be called, give some sort of explanation why an Amendment of this sort has not been called, so that millions of people can understand why, in our Parliamentary democracy, a thing of this sort can be cut out of the Bill?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Further to that point of order. I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that all these facts are fully within your mind. But, if I may, I will recall to the memory of the House that the point raised by the Amendment was very fully debated during the Committee stage—

Mr. Dodds: And so were many other things.

Mr. Walker-Smith: —and the debate filled 44 columns of HANSARD.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Further to that point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that it was a matter which was discussed and considered when we debated dividends and the very important question of principle involved in enforcement and discrimination against the co-operative societies, and making it enforceable by the Court. That was the only reference to this cooperative matter in the whole of the proceedings on the Bill. It is a very important feature of the Bill. We have had no reconsideration of it and no discussion during the Report stage or earlier, after the Government—and this is the important thing—had had an opportunity to consider at their leisure the points made in that debate. Therefore, the observation of the Parliamentary Secretary, that this matter has been adequately dealt with and disposed of in one debate, does not meet the point.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without wishing to turn into a debate what is a request for your guidance, that had the Government considered that 44 columns of debate dictated any different approach to this problem, an Amendment would have been put down. But the Report stage is not supposed to be a vehicle for the reiteration of the same considerations which have already been expressed at length during the Committee stage discussions.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am reluctant to allow it to go on, because I ought not to allow it all.

Mr. Jay: Is it not because the attitude of the Government is still so unsatisfactory that it ought to be debated at this present stage? Are you not aware also, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Amendment which we now seek to move is in a different form and makes a substantially different suggestion from the one which we debated during the Committee stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that under Standing Order No. 31 Mr. Speaker has the power of selection and it cannot be discussed. Otherwise, we could go on discussing the question of selection all the time. This Amendment has not been selected, and that is all I can say about it.
Regarding the point about people being aware of the position, after the conference it is known which Amendments are to be selected and which are not, for the convenience of people who wish to make speeches, because they might prepare a speech upon an Amendment which was not selected. Consequently, the information is, more or less, public property.

Mr. G. Darling: I do not wish to appear to be questioning your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am confident that Mr. Speaker did not take into consideration the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that 44 columns of discussion got rid of any subject—that, however important it might be, 44 columns of discussion was sufficient to get rid of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot answer that. The conference was yesterday morning at eleven, and as I had been up until six o'clock I asked leave to be excused. I do not know, therefore, what was said, and even if I did, I could not inform the House.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not suggest that 44 columns of debate, or any number of columns, was sufficient to get rid of this, or indeed any other point of principle on which differences might be sincerely and deeply felt. I was addressing myself to the contention that insufficient attention had been given to this matter by the House. No one disputes that it is an important matter.

Mr. Dodds: I never made any suggestion that this matter had been insufficiently discussed. I said there was deep concern that this part of the Bill was not to be discussed and I asked you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to be good enough to explain how we work in our Parliamentary democracy. The Parliamentary Secretary simply was not listening to what I was saying.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I mention a further point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Parliamentary Secretary has intervened three or four times and mentioned 44 columns of debate. It was I who suggested that 44 columns was no indication of the adequacy of a debate. I did so because that debate took place on one occasion, and one occasion only. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to


think that if the Government had considered a debate and wished to do nothing about it that was good enough for the House, but that is not so. This House is not a place for dictation by a Government. It is a place for finding the reasons for which a Government act. The suggestion we make is that the House should be given an opportunity of probing the matter further, and of probing the reconsideration which we trust the Government have given to the matter in the light of the debate concerned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think I can allow this question to be considered further. Mr. Speaker and I have to work under the Standing Orders of the House.

Sir Leslie Plummer: On a further point of order. As this question concerns, not 44 columns in HANSARD, but 11 million people in the country, would you consider the submission of a manuscript Amendment to cover the point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

Mr. J. C. Forman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary entitled to censure the Chair for allowing 44 columns of discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the occupants of the Chair can look after themselves.

Clause 22.—(RECONSTITUTION OF MONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 20, line 32, to leave out from the first "Commission" to the end of the Clause.
This Amendment would substantially reverse the decision of the Government heavily to curtail the powers of the Monopolies Commission. We think that that decision is wrong. We believe that even if we accept the rest of the structure of this Bill—the Restrictive Practices Court and the rest—at the same time there is valuable work which the Monopolies Commission could continue to do. We think that the Commission has already made very great and important contributions to the whole question of monopolies and restrictive practices policy, and we wish to see it continuing to exercise a wider jurisdiction and greater authority than the Government intend to give it.
As the Bill stands, the work of the Monopolies Commission henceforth will be very largely confined to considering the position of the outright monopolies or near-monopolies, what the Government call interconnected bodies corporate, as they are also styled by the Bill. If that is all the Commission is to have to do it will not have a full-time job, or a job worthy of its capacities. Several times I have asked the Government what they think the Commission is to recommend when it is faced with one of the monopoly or near-monopoly giants in British industry. I raised this point partly on the Report of the Commission on the match industry.
It seems to me that there are substantially only two proposals which the Commission can make when faced with these great one-firm combines. One is that there should be publicly enforced price control, which the Commission recommended in the case of the match industry, and the other possible solution is public ownership. Since the party opposite is doctrinally inhibited against both those solutions, as we found in the case of the match industry, I cannot see what substantially useful purpose will be served by the Commission investigating those industries and making recommendations along these lines. Therefore, it seems to us that it should be given something else to do.
In view of the time, I shall make only two suggestions of the sort of thing which it seems to us the Commission might do, even given the construction of this Bill. Yesterday we discussed the problem of contracts of sale. The President, I think very plausibly, argued that it would not be possible to burden the Registrar with a record of every contract of sale in the country. On the other hand, he admitted that in the case of the great petrol companies obtaining control by sole agency agreements of a large section of the distributive organisation for petrol in the country—which might be even more important if the American industry is to get control of a larger section of the retail organisation—there might be a case for public intervention.
As the Bill stands, it seems impossible to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable action of that kind. I should have thought that the Commission could go into the position. It might find in the


case of the oil companies that there was good reason for Government intervention, whereas in other cases of agency agreements it was not necessary to make an intervention. That is only one example of the sort of thing the Commission might do.
I mention one other possibility which has occurred to me. Would it be possible to ask the Commission—perhaps not immediately after the passing of this Bill, but at a slightly later period, while the whole of the rest of the procedure of the Court and the Registrar is going on—to review the whole working of the new system, and to see whether, at that slightly later stage, it could recommend a group of the worst sort of restrictive practices for a general prohibition in a later Bill, such as we would have preferred to see in the Bill now before us?
In its Report on collective discrimination last year, the Commission had before it rather limited terms of reference. It proposed that all the practices which it examined should be generally prohibited, and the criticism was made that it was examining only one part of the field and there might conceivably be practices outside that field which should be condemned. It seems possible that at a later stage it might be desirable to ask the Commission to look at the whole field in the light of some decision reached, and to see whether a stage had been reached at which there might be a general prohibition.
I am putting these points forward, not as considered proposals, but as examples of the kind of useful work which we think the Commission might do. All we say emphatically at this stage is that if this Government or any other wanted the Commission to do that at a later stage it would be impossible for the Commission to enter into inquiries and work of that kind. If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that under the present Bill either of those types of inquiry of a general or a particular kind would be possible, so far we should be comforted, but we still think it would be far wiser to keep the Commission in being in its present form, so that it might be able to undertake either that kind of inquiry or other work which we may not now have thought of, but which would be highly desirable in the public interest.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the first three Amendments on the next page of the Notice Paper:
In page 21, line 24, at the end to insert:
but not before the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed".
In line 25, to leave out subsection (1); and in line 41, to leave out subsection (3).
If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) desires to have a Division on his Amendment in line 24, he may do so.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
The proposal implicit in the Bill to emasculate the Monopolies Commission has given us much cause for alarm. Frequently during the debates, when we have wanted to extend the scope of the Bill to deal with restrictive practices which we thought ought to be dealt with, the President of the Board of Trade has told us that the scope of the Bill is limited. He has frequently said that it deals only with collective restrictive practices. On the ground that the Bill is restricted, the right hon. Gentleman has turned aside and defeated proposals which we have made for extending its scope.
In other words, there are a number of restrictive practices in this country outside the scope of the Bill, and we say, I think logically and rightly, that restrictive practices in this country should be dealt with, whether they come within the scope of the Bill or not. If they cannot be dealt with by the court procedure prescribed here, they should be dealt with in some other way. In effect, the only other way we have of dealing with them is through examination, inquiry and report by the Monopolies Commission, and action following its report.
The right hon. Gentleman has also said during the course of our discussions—indeed, it has been said from both sides of the House—that to a very large extent the Bill is an experiment, in the sense that we do not know the full range of restrictive practices with which it will have to deal. At the moment, nobody in this country knows how many restrictive practices are in operation. We do not know


how many practices which are operated at present by the trade associations in this country will be dealt with and made unlawful under the Bill. Not only do we not know the number and full extent of their operations over our economy, but we do not know, and will not know for a considerable time, whether all those practices which we think ought to be dealt with by the Court because of their apparently collective character, will in fact be dealt with by the court.
There are numerous loopholes in the Bill. We think the Bill is very weak in Clause 16. We have seen the help which will be given to trade associations by the legal profession, and we believe—we may be wrong—that, with the help of astute lawyers, there are a great number of restrictive practices which, in our view as laymen, ought to be dealt with, which will escape the court procedure and continue to be operated.
Apart from that, there remains the unknown size of the range of restrictive practices still in operation. Yet the Government suggest at this stage, with our lack of knowledge and ignorance of the true situation, that the only other body which can deal with these matters—the Monopolies Commission—should be emasculated. They suggest that the number of people on the Commission should be reduced and that the scope of its activities should be restricted by comparison with the present scope.
Just because we do not know what the situation is, it seems to us that if our intention is to get rid of restrictive practices in this country, this is a very peculiar way of setting about it. By emasculating the Commission we are making certain that many restrictive practices which are outside the scope of the Bill will be permitted to continue, because the Monopolies Commission will not be able to deal with them.
A wide range of them remain. In moving the Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned some examples, and asked the Parliamentary Secretary questions. We are bound to mention the petrol companies; they have been mentioned frequently in the discussions, for they provide an easy example. One of the reasons why we continue to mention the petrol companies is that this is an example which has come out into the

open. There may be many more examples of the same kind going on, but we do not know about them; they have not been examined. One of the reasons why they have not been examined is that not all the customers' complaints about restrictive practices have been sent to the Monopolies Commission for examination. If we are restricted in the examples which we give, the reason is that we do not know the full extent of the restrictive practices.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement this afternoon that the Shell and B.P. group was handling 60 per cent. of the petrol trade of this country. In view of the fact that that group goes in for one kind of restrictive practice at least, the tied garage business, I should have thought that the Shell and B.P. group ought to be examined by the Commission. I am not singling that group out; I think that the operations of all petrol companies ought at some time to be examined by the Commission.
There are single-firm monopolies which we know exist and which are outside the scope of the Bill. For instance, there are the activities of such groups as Unilever, about which it might well be argued that none of Unilever's activities, except perhaps the margarine business—I do not know—represents one-third or more than one-third of the trade in those activities. It may well be argued that these do not come within the purview of the Commission. I do not know. I am making no complaint against the Unilever group; I do not know whether its practices are or are not in the public interest. I simply say that we ought not to continue to run our economy in a state of ignorance, and that we ought to know how these big combines operate.
All I am pleading for here is that we should strengthen the Monopolies Commission in order that it can become a truly responsible and permanent fact-finding body, so that we and everybody else in the community concerned with industry, trade and economic matters will know precisely how these big concerns operate, whether they are in the public interest and whether or not they are doing things which ought to be stopped.
Surely there is no harm in finding what the facts are. One of the reasons why we frequently get into economic and industrial troubles in this country is that we do not know the facts when we


deal with issues which arise; and we do not know the facts because we have not a properly established fact-finding body which can be given the job of getting us the information which we need for the purpose of directing economic policy. In the present circumstances, when everybody admits that Britain's economic position in the world is not very good and that we face great difficulties, it seems to me retrogressive to weaken or get rid of a fact-finding body which may be of great value to us.
There is another aspect of the matter which disturbs me. The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), a few moments ago, tried to move an Amendment because he thought it desirable that trade associations should have a few months in which to work out what they should do, when the Bill becomes an Act, to put their affairs in order. I imagine from his remarks that he wants to make sure that the trade association with which he is concerned adjusts its operations to suit the terms of the Act. He wants to get within the law. I am sure that that is his intention, and applaud him for wanting to do that. There are, however, other trade associations which we believe will employ legal advice, not for that purpose, but to find out how they can adjust their operations, keep within the law and still get the same results. They might set up interconnected bodies corporate or perhaps agree to have single-firm activities so that they can escape the Act, although the activities of the single firm, with a few variations, will be similar to the present activities.
When that development occurs we might find that quite a number of trade associations that have been running collective restrictive practices will escape the law. Though their operations will still be the same in effect, they will escape the Act, and if that happens on any scale it is quite obvious that we shall need a fact-finding body to see just what is going on in that field. I do not know how many interconnected bodies corporate will be set up to escape this Bill when it becomes law, or how many partnerships will be formed for that purpose. The number may be large. If it is, we obviously want a fact-finding body, the need for which will become more urgent as time goes on.
I would suggest that, having taken this step to deal with collective restrictive practices, we ought to go along on a broad front to get as much information as we possibly can about the whole of the industrial and commercial activities of the country. The need for secrecy in business has disappeared long ago. There is need for secrecy, perhaps, in protecting patents, etc., but secrecy anywhere as to business operations, financial investments, trading arrangements and the like is a handicap to the development of our economy. We need a fact-finding body —our whole economic system requires it. In those circumstances, to emasculate the only fact-finding body that we have is in my view totally regressive, and I therefore urge the Government to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. Holt: I should like later to move the Amendment in page 21, line 24, standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I understood from what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we should discuss it now, although we may move it after this Amendment has been dealt with.
As I see the Parliamentary Secretary sitting there with a confident. friendly smile on his face, I am hopeful that, perhaps, after all the discussion that has taken place on this subject during the Committee stage, the Government have now recognised the strength of the case that was put, and are more conscious of the importance of retaining a critical attitude in the mind of the public, and a critical outlook on competition by the whole nation. It seems to me that at this juncture, when we do not really know—when even the Government cannot really say for certain—what is to happen when so many cases come before this new Court, it is important that we should allow the new Monopolies Commission to function both energetically and widely, and that we should have a number of reports constantly coming before the public to keep up this critical outlook on everything that industry is doing which in one way or another may be limiting competition.
Although I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), with much of which I agree, and in that of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), I really think that there is quite


enough for the Commission to do in just looking at monopolies for the time being, without having to go into new kinds of practices to which this House has not yet given a great deal of thought. I should have thought that if the Government were really serious about trying to get a free economy to work in modern and very complicated conditions, and in a country where monopolies and quasi-monopolies have already spread to a considerable extent, they would have thought it vital to have the closest look at a whole number of these concerns which are now operating.
5.45 p.m.
There are many views about this. Some people automatically consider monopolies bad. The official Opposition would wish to nationalise many of them. Even amongst those who would prefer a free economy different views are held about them. It is important at this stage that we should have a searchlight on many of the monopolies that are now operating. It may be that some of them will come out of investigation with flying colours and will be found to be doing a public service; that there is something natural in the structure which has grown up and which should not be upset. On the other hand, some may be quite undesirable.
Be that as it may, it hardly seems the moment to cut down the Commission in view of the change which will come about when the Bill is enacted and before these monopolies have not been examined. I hope, therefore, that when we move our Amendment, the object of which is merely to delay the operation of this Clause for three years while we see how things are developing and in the meantime to keep up pressure on industry, the Government will be ready to accept it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of the future of the Monopolies Commission has already received some attention from the House and we did exchange some views about it in earlier proceedings on the Bill. The hon. Member for Hillsborough Mr. G. Darling), who made certain suggestions on the previous occasion, has returned to the attack and has two or three times referred to the unwisdom and inadvisability of what he calls emasculating the Commission. This is a vivid and, indeed, a suggestive metaphor, but I suggest, with respect, that it is not the right description

of what the future of the Monopolies Commission will be.
What we are seeking to do is to retain the Commission to serve a useful and necessary purpose in the interests of the community and, at the same time, to make it quite clear that the functions of the Commission are distinct—as in logic and by every principle of good administration they should be—from those of the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. G. Darling: If the Parliamentary Secretary reduces anything from 25 to 10, that is emasculation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, it is not my understanding of the term. I have always understood that the process envisaged by the metaphorical description is absolute and is not a relative or qualitative one. It is for that reason that I am dissenting from this rather vivid metaphor, which, I again submit, is exaggerated in its context. In fact, the Monopolies Commission will go on in full strength and activity, albeit, as we made quite plain in Committee, in a more limited field.
We are actuated by the principle of seeking to make a proper and logical apportionment between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission, based on assigning to that Court those issues which are properly justiciable, and retaining or giving to the Commission those matters which are, of their nature, more administrative or inquisitorial. That has led us to the assignment of function which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) defined a little incompletely, because, in addition to the monopolies of scale, he will recall that the Commission is also to have, under Clause 25 of the Bill, pure export agreements. It will be concerned with both those matters.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough said, quite fairly and properly, that there are restrictive practices outside the registrable ones under Part I of the Bill. Of course there are, but our intention and effort in the Bill has been to see that all restrictive practices come under some procedure or another. There are, in fact, three main methods of dealing with these restrictive practices—the Court, which has the register of agreements under Part I of the Bill, the Monopolies Commission, which has monopolies of scale and export agreements under


Part III, and then, under Part II, there is a total statutory prohibition under which falls the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance, which is a very large and important part of restrictive practices as at present exercised.
Thus, albeit it is true to say that there are restrictive practices other than those which go to the Court, it is not, in my submission, right to say that there are any restrictive practices for which the Bill does not provide a proper or sufficient remedy. That is, at least, our intention, and so far, no hon. Member has been able to spell out any restrictive practice which he can suggest does not come within some remedy in the Bill.

Mr. Jay: Did not the President of the Board of Trade admit yesterday that the sole agency agreements of the petrol companies were altogether outside the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I was coming to the point about sole agencies; it was, I think, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, and certainly by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. Sole agencies, if limited to two parties, are, it is true, outside the Bill; but they are only outside the overall system of remedies if they are not also monopolies of scale within the definition in Section 3 of the 1948 Act.
I do not want to canvass individual cases in the House, because I do not think that it is either rewarding or altogether right so to do; but I must just point out that, of course, the prime instance brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough is not only a sole agency but it is, on the figures which he gave, within the ambit of the existing law, because it satisfies the conditions in subsection (1, a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1948. So that that does not derogate from the principle which I enunciated, that these matters do come, if not necessarily within Part I of the Bill, within the general pattern of the defences against restrictive practices.

Mr. Jay: If, as the Chancellor told us today, Shell and B.P., which are separate companies, joined together to form a distribution company, and that distribution subsidiary controlled 60 per cent. of the distribution in the country, would

the distribution operation come within the 1948 Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It would, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) would agree, be quite wrong for me to essay opinions on individual cases off the cuff in debate in the House. All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, is that if he has the facts, he will see the definition in subsection (1, a) of Section 3 of that Act, and will be able, with the expert and professional assistance of his hon. and learned Friend, to evolve his own answer from it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot run away from the question like that. Let us take the case of two producers and distributors, A and B. A and B control 60 per cent. of the product of something sold in this country. They form a company C, and they sell through the company C. Taking that hypothetical case, would that case be within the Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me whether that hypothetical case comes within the words of Section 3 (1, a) of the 1948 Act, which says:
at least one-third of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof are supplied by or to any one person, or by or to any two or more persons, being interconnected bodies corporate, or by or to any such two …
This is the subsection which defines the conditions in which the supply of goods is controlled by two or more persons, who are either interconnected bodies corporate or are two or more persons as defined in the next subsection, subsection (2) of Section 3. That subsection says:
The two or more persons referred to in subsection (1) of this Section are any two or more persons who, whether voluntarily or not, and whether by agreement or arrangement or not, so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition in connection with the production or supply of goods of the description in question".

Mr. G. Darling: The answer is "No".

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his very clear answer?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be


content with thanking me, but will seek to emulate that clarity in the opinions which he gives to the House.
If we may leave the hypothetical case —and, as I say, I am reluctant to prejudice individual positions by dealing with individual cases on the basis of a hypothesis—I submit that the general pattern is a comprehensive pattern, and that, in the law as we propose it to be, the Commission and the Court will each have its proper and appropriate function to carry out.
With respect, I think that the case is over-stressed when it is suggested that there will develop all sorts of evasive techniques which will give rise to different arrangements which will somehow escape what is a comprehensive net. For example, it is suggested that concerns will come together and become single firm monopolies. But then they would run into the part of the net which is spread by the Act of 1948. It is suggested that they may make partnerships; but, as the House will recall, we have limited that possibility by the Amendment we have made to the Bill to restrict that to partnerships of individuals. As regards interconnected bodies corporate, as the House will appreciate, if that is done, it does involve a surrender of control which most companies, I think, would be loth to undertake merely for the sake of working out an evasive technique.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, made two specific suggestions of additional tasks which could be put upon the Monopolies Commission. One was the matter of sole agencies, and on that, as I say, our view is that sole agencies are not likely of themselves, merely as between two parties, to be anti-social unless they come into the monopoly category and are caught by Section 3 of the 1948 Act. His second suggestion was a very wide one, a general review of restrictive practices. It is an interesting suggestion, but I would not think that the Monopolies Commission, which is doing an investigating task, is necessarily also the right body to perform a task which, I would think, was basically a task for the Government.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said, contrary to what was said by other hon. Members, that he thought the Monopolies Commission would have enough to do with these

monopolies of scale and export agreements. He very fairly stated, however, that not all monopolies are necessarily bad; they are bad only if they obtain their position by, and use it for, restriction and not by reason of efficiency.
6.0 p.m.
Where it is thought that firms satisfy the conditions of Section 3 of the 1948 Act as to monopolies of scale and that they are in restraint of trade, we would not hesitate to refer them to the Commission; but merely because a firm is a monopoly in the sense that it has one-third of the trade does not necessarily mean that it is anti-social if what it is doing is to improve the technique of production and to reflect that in the price which it gives to the consumer.

Mr. Holt: The point is that under the Clause as the Parliamentary Secretary now has it, the Commission can look at only one monopoly at a time.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member is suggesting that there should be a reversion to the group system to enable the Commission to conduct more investigations simultaneously, we do not think that that will be necessary in what is a more limited sphere than that in which the Monopolies Commission has so far been deploying itself, because now it will not have the registrable agreements under Part I to investigate. The House will recall that the group system was no part of the original pattern set up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1948.
We consider that the effect of continuing the Monopolies Commission in its present form would be to endanger confusion of functions with the Court and a possible clash of jurisdiction, and that if it did not do this it would be necessary to give the Commission functions of an academic and unsuitable nature which, again, would derogate from the high standing which we hope it will enjoy and the high purpose which we are sure it will observe.

Mr. Holt: Why does the Parliamentary Secretary say that it would confuse the Commission when the Commission cannot do anything without having a reference made to it by the President of the Board of Trade? Surely, it is quite within the capability of the President not to refer to the Commission things which are being taken care of by the Court.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is why we have been careful to frame the Bill in these precise terms to avoid the possibility of that happening. If we avoid that, we do not need a larger Commission. If we enlarge the Commission, either it would be short of work or we would derogate from that high principle. Therefore, we consider that the Monopolies Commission will go forward in its new form as a smaller, more compact Commission, but one which still has a very useful function to discharge and which we are sure will discharge it in an energetic manner.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have had a very lame speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, and not least the answer he has given to the two interventions by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). The hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted to answer the point seriously. He has given the impression that he has become rather weary of all the processes of the Bill, has stopped applying his mind to the arguments, and is simply relying on the fact that when the Division bell rings he can carry the point by force of votes and does not have to worry whether he is defeated by force of argument.
The Parliamentary Secretary certainly has been defeated by force of argument, both inside and outside the House, on this important Amendment, which is supported in the country by opinion which is interested in the question of monopolies. It is supported even by people who are backing the Government on the main proposals of the Bill. Many people feel that this is one of the most serious loopholes. There had been hopes that the Government would meet the strong points which have been made.
All we had from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon was a repetition, with considerably less conviction, of the arguments he gave us in Committee. In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke before I did and in my speech I completely answered the case which the Government were trying to make. I did not get a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hoped that in the interval before the Report stage he would give thought to my argument and, having thought it over and realising what a reasonable and unanswerable case I had made, would meet us by the time we reached the Report stage. Instead, we

have had evidence that the Parliamentary Secretary has given no real thought to the matter.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman has told us once again is the old argument that what the Government are concerned with is to avoid the overlapping of jurisdiction or of functions between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission. He has told us, in that rather flowery language we get from him from time to time, that he wants a logical apportionment of the burden and responsibility between these two bodies. When he says that all restrictive practices come under some procedure or other in the Bill, he makes not only a sweeping claim but one which is denied by all the experts on this matter.
I want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary. It really is not good enough simply to sweep this away on one side as just another Amendment to which he must make the appearance of paying some attention. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer this point specifically. Can he get up and say definitely that there are no cases which will not be covered either by Clause 5 or by the powers of the Monopolies Commission? Can he get up and say that there will be no cases that fall between the different procedures of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I know of none. If the hon. Lady knows of any, perhaps she will supply the information.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been told of some cases this afternoon. The moment he was given individual cases, he said, "I do not want to be drawn into a consideration of individual items." Having first made his general claim and said that nobody could puncture it by individual examples, when he was given instances he refused to argue on the individual points.
Let me give the Parliamentary Secretary one example. I gave it in Committee and I give it to him again. The enforcement of individual resale price maintenance is a restrictive practice. It does not come under Clause 5. Far from being banned under the Bill, individual resale price maintenance is given a new strength through the power of legal enforcement. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not worried about that, all sorts of other people who have given serious


thought to the problem are worried about it, and not least the Economist. When I quoted this in Committee, I did not get an answer. Perhaps I can get an answer today.
It was the Economist, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, has been very fair and helpful to the Government on the whole of the Bill, which pointed out that in the tyre industry, for example, the Report of the Monopolies Commission came to the conclusion that the restrictionist consequences of the policy of the tyre manufacturers, which had caused grave alarm in the country, arose from the policy of individual resale price maintenance. The Economist pointed out that the Report definitely recommended that if restrictionism in the tyre industry was to be ended, the policy of individual resale price maintenance should be ended. Instead of doing that, however, the Government have given it legal enforcement under the Bill.
What are the Government doing about the tyre industry? On Clause 20 we moved an Amendment that the powers of legal enforcement should be withheld in cases where it was shown that they were contrary to the public interest. The Government, however, would not accept our Amendment, and so there is no safeguard. Under the present procedure, the Government have strengthened one restrictionst practice, which may be a source of trouble in industry after industry. It was for this reason that the Economist said that the Monopolies Commission ought to be continued in its present form as a reserve weapon. Behind the structure proposed by the Bill it ought to be there to examine possible escape routes the Bill may leave open, and to make general recommndations how they could be closed.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary in all seriousness that it is unlikely, as this House consists of human beings, that it has produced a perfect Measure in this Bill. We do not usually produce perfection. At first, we have a shot at producing a Measure which we hope will be perfect. but, and particularly when the matter is one as complicated as this is, it is only a first shot, and what we on this side of the House say is that there may be things about which we want to think again because we may not so far have perfectly

legislated for everything. Resale price maintenance is one such thing.
If we have the Monopolies Commission, and if the Board of Trade has power, when it knows there is mounting public anxiety about individual industries, to refer those individual industries for examination, whether or not they are dominated by single-firm monopolies, then we can have inquiries made into how the Bill is working in practice. Perhaps then the Government will decide that Clause 20, in its present form, is a bad Clause, and then they will want to think about it again.
It want to know what the Government are going to do about the tyre industry. If the Government have inhibited themselves, in Clause 20, from meeting the recommendations made in the Monopolies Commission's Report, what effective alternative action is there? According to the Report, there is no alternative effective action. It seems that, as usual, the Parliamentry Secretary is not listening to me. However, I frankly admit to him that I have not had time to study in any detail the new Report which has just come out on the supply of hard fibre cordage. All I have had time to do is to read newspaper summaries of the Report, but from reading those summaries it is clear that here is an industry and an important industrial activity over whose restrictive practices the Monopolies Commission has expressed grave concern. It has condemned a whole list of those practices.
It has condemned the activities of the Hard Fibre Cordage Federation on a large number of counts. I realise that most of them will be covered by the procedures of the Bill, the common price system, for instance, and exclusive. dealing. It may be that another restrictive practice, the prohibition on the manufacture and sale of cords and twines above or below a certain minimum standard, could also be covered. As a sort of restrictive practice agreement it would come under Clause 5, but there is another provision which, at first sight, I should think restrictive, and that is a new prohibition on spinning on commission by non-members of the Federation. Another of the practices which the Report certainly condemns is the resale price maintenance practice.
I suggest that it would be quite possible, if the Monopolies Commission were


to continue to function in the old way—not exactly in the old way, perhaps, because Clause 5 will have an effect on its activities, but to continue with the same membership and scope and general powers of surveillance over industry and general powers of inquiry into industry—we should be able to learn things we do not yet know.
There is another side to the matter. The correspondent who wrote the summary of the Report for the Manchester Guardian also wrote:
The importance of this Report is not confined to the individual industry. With the publication of more and more reports by the Commission a growing body of precedents is being built up so that the conditions in one industry can be compared with those in another
6.15 p.m.
I suggest that the reason why we have this Bill is that there has been a Monopolies Commission which has been able to build up a body of evidence and to paint a picture of the general situation in British industry, a work which ought to go on, because if it does not the Bill will mean that we shall have substituted for this work of the Monopolies Commission work of a much narrower scope by the Restrictive Practices Court, which will not be examining industrial practices in their broad economic effects, but will be legally interpreting the effects and consequences of individual agreements, and that is a very different thing.
We on this side have argued more than once that we are anxious about the fact that a body predominantly legalistic is now to discuss a problem which is broadly economic. It is particularly important because under Clause 16 we have given that body a duty of defining the public interest, which is a matter, we all agree, that is not strictly justiciable. I should have thought it all the more important to have had the Monopolies Commission continuing to issue reports which enable a picture of the practices in British industry to be clearly depicted, and to provide a basis for comparison of one industry with another, and enable the economic consequences of agreements and practices to be better understood. It is exceptionally bad not to have, in addition to the legal procedure, an economic survey going on at the same time on how restrictionism works in 
That is why we, and many other people who may disagree with our views about some things in the Bill, have begged the Government to look at this matter again. Although the Government have made some concessions in response to our arguments, it is a very grave commentary upon their policy that they have not met the non-party and serious arguments which we have put to them on this important matter.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said so clearly and forcibly, the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a completely unsatisfactory reply. There are just three aspects of the work which may be done by the Monopolies Commission. I summarise them briefly.
First, there are the restrictive practices which are not within the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friends have said in the debate, there are, for instance, those of the petrol companies. They are not covered by the Bill unless they form such a big fraction in any case of the total distribution that they fall within the purview of the Commission. Inter-connected bodies corporate and the rest, unless they fall within the purview of the Commission, because they are big enough for the purpose, are not covered by the provisions for the Court or the Commission.
We come to the Commission, upon which the Parliamentary Secretary has relied as applying to those cases of restrictive practices which are outside the Bill. They come within the purview of the Commission only if they are on a big enough scale in each individual case. When they are within the ambit of the Commission, then, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) so clearly, the Bill carefully provides that they can be dealt with only one at a time. Many think that the Government have introduced the Bill to ensure that monopolies shall be dealt with slowly.
We come to restrictive practices which are within the scope of the Bill and would be dealt with by the Court. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and others, what we want is a review of the decisions of the Court in the sense that we want to


know what the effect of those decisions is upon the economic structure and policy of the country.
I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary mentioning again the question of a clash when this matter was dealt with very fully in Committee. There is no question of a clash in the proposal. It is merely to ensure that there shall be a review of the decisions of the Court so as to see what effect those decisions are having upon the country's economic position. The whole attitude of the Government on Part III of the Bill, in cutting down the Monopolies Commission in every single aspect of its work, makes some of us doubt the purpose of some of those who are concerned with this Measure.
It is not good enough to say to the House, as the Government have done "We want a great campaign against restrictive practices and monopolies" and then, when we get to Part III of the Bill, we find that the opposite is the case. We shall, therefore, press this matter to a Division.

Mr. Walker-Smith: By leave of the House, perhaps I might in all courtesy deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). In answer to my invitation to name a specific matter which, in her view, lay outside what I would call the general pattern of protection against restrictive practices, the hon. Lady cited the case of individual resale price maintenance by large concerns, such as was revealed in the Commission's Report on tyres.
The provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, are wide enough to allow the Board of Trade to make a reference to the Commission where manufacturers who individually attach price conditions to their goods control at least one-third of the trade, albeit no one manufacturer may himself alone control one-third. References can be made to the Commission on the effect on the public interest of individual resale price maintenance in a great many trades in the country. Powers exist to prohibit them in such cases under paragraphs (c) and (e) of Section 10 (2) of the 1948 Act.
The main point of my seeking leave to speak again is to comment on what the

hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has Just said. He referred to individual cases only in the event of references to the Monopolies Commission, but I am sure that he will have in mind that the conditions defined in Section 3 of the 1948 Act include two or more persons not only when they are inter-connected bodies corporate but are acting together in the way set out in Section 3 (2).

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The petrol companies are not acting together. That is why it is acknowledged that they do not come within the ambit of the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Member is asserting it. As I said in my previous observations, I am reserving my position on that, because I do not wish to give from this Box an opinion in individual cases eo nomine, if I may repeat the hon. and learned Member's phrase. The other point which he made was equally invalid and insubstantial when he criticised the fact that under this provision cases would come before the Monopolies Commission one at a time instead of under a group system. The former method was instituted in the 1948 Act by the Government of which the hon. and learned Member later became a member. The group system was not initiated until 1953, and this is belated and altogether unconvincing zeal on his part.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that when the Bill and the whole of the Commission scheme were introduced by the Labour Party it was found, when the matter was proceeding, that we wanted quicker work, and further measures were introduced to speed it up? After that experience, the present Government are cutting down the Commission. That is the point.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Member misconceives the point. His Government remained in office for three years after the Act had been passed and they did not introduce a group system. They left it to this Government to do so. We are now introducing another improvement into the whole pattern and this fits well into the appointed pattern.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 157.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Amory, Rt. Hn.Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.


Ashton, H.
Hay, John
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Atkins, H. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Partridge, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, H. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Profumo, J. D.


Black, C. W.
Howard, John (Test)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Body, R, F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Redmayne, M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hyde, Montgomery
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robertson, Sir David


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, R. C.


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Keegan, D.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W.
Speir, R. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kershaw, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kimball, M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cunningham. Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Leburn, W. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. 
Teeling, W.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&amp;L'm'tn)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Turner, H. F. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswich)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vosper, D. F.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fort, R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Foster, John
Maddan, Martin
Webbe, Sir H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Freeth, D. K.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marples, A. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mathew, R.



Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.




Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Bacon, Miss Alice
Blyton, W. R.


Albu, A. H.
Baird, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Benson, G.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)


Anderson, Frank
Blackburn, F.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)




Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hunter, A. E.
Pryde, D. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&amp;St.Pncs,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cronin, J. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, G. M.
Sheffington, A. M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mahon, Simon
Swingler, S. T.


Dye, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thornton, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, H. J.
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Letvis'm,S.)
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grimond, J.
Orbach, M.
Willey, Frederick


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, W. W.
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis
Pargiter, C. A.
Woof, R. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Holman, P.
Paton, John
Zilliacus, K.


Holt, A. F.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hubbard, T. F.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) desire to move his Amendment?

Mr. Holt: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and myself, I beg to move, in page 21, line 24, at the end to insert:
but not before the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed".

We have already had a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 209.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Anderson, Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Baird, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Benson, G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dye, S.


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cronin, J. D.
Fienburgh, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Finch, H. J.


Boyd, T. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fletcher, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Forman, J. C.




Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mahon, Simon
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Marquand, Fit. Hon. H. A.
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, Sir F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Healey, Denis
Morrison,Fit.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Holmes, Horace
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.
Thornton, E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Owen, W. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.
Viant, S. P.


Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, D.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paton, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Peart, T. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wigg, George


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


King, Dr. H. M.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Lawson, G. M.
Rankin, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Redhead, E. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.
Woof, R. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lipton, Lt.-Gol. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William
Mr. Grimond and Mr. Holt.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Alport, C. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Drayson, C. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Arbuthnot, John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hn. Dame Florence


Armstrong, C. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, John (Test)


Ashton, H.
Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&amp;L'm'tn)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admral J.


Atkins, H. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)


Balniel, Lord
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Barter, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hyde, Montgomery


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Erroll, F. J.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fell, A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bidgood, J. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Biggs Davison, J. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Black, C. W.
Foster, John
Joseph, Sir Keith


Body, R. F.
Fraser, Sir Ian(M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Boothby, Sir Robert
Freeth, D. K.
Keegan, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kerr, H. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kershaw, J. A.


Braine, B. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Kimball, M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Godber, J. B.
Lambton, Viscount


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Cot. Sir Alan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bryan, P.
Gower, H. R.
Leburn, W. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Green, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Carr, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Longden, Gilbert


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hay, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cunningham, Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John




McLean, Neil (Inverness)







MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
PickthOrn, K. W. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Macmillan,Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Pitman, I. J.
Teeling, W.


Maddan, Martin
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Pott, H. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rawlinson, Peter
Touche, Sir Gordon


Marples, A. E.
Redmayne, M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Marshall, Douglas
Renton, D. L. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mathew, R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maude, Angus
Rippon, A. G. F.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Mawby, R. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vosper, D. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Robertson, Sir David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sharples, R. C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Heave, Airey
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Webbe, Sir H.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Page, R. G.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Woollam, John Victor


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Partridge, E.
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.

Clause 23.—(FUTURE SCOPE OF REFERENCES TO MONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 22, line 5, to leave out "and" and to insert:
shall not apply in relation to any such reference in respect of which directions are given by the Board under subsection (3) of this section.
(5)".
It may be for the convenience of the House, Sir, if we discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment, to line 6.
The purpose of these Amendments is simple. They deal with the power of the Board of Trade to vary a reference to the Monopolies Commission. Subsection (4) of Section 6 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, limits that power. In effect, what it says is that one can vary a reference but one must not vary a reference on public interest to a reference on fact only. There may well be some good purpose in that—not in the case of any of us here—but one can imagine the situation in which the President of the Board of Trade might lose his nerve shortly before the public interest report and vary it to one on fact only.
6.45 p.m.
The Bill as it stands removes that limitation both in regard to existing and future references, and that is much too wide. The point was made during the Committee stage that all we want to do is a very limited thing, namely, to vary one, or at the most two references to be

on the facts only, because we want to get those completed and to get as much as we usefully can of the present references to the Commission dealt with in that way; whereas we clearly cannot have references running on for several years and duplicating the work of the Court. We probably debated this a little in the recent discussion.
The Amendment, therefore, limits the exclusion which stands in the Bill as drafted, and limits the power of the Board of Trade to vary references, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 6, leave out "that Act" and insert "the Act of 1948".—[Mr. P. Thorneyeroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 22, line 8, to leave out from "effect" to the end of line 14.
This Amendment deals with the question of the power to review the operation of an undertaking given under the Monopolies Act of 1948; that is to say, where an industry, after a report, has given certain undertakings as to the way it will conduct its arrangements in the future, there is power under Section 12 of that Act to have an inquiry to see how that is operating. Obviously, we need to retain this power for future references. There may be inquiries into export arrangements or into single firm monopolies. Undertakings may be given, and from time to time it may be appropriate to use the review power in Section 12 to


see whether the undertakings were working out as had been anticipated.
The Bill as drafted repeals the review, or power to have reviews, with regard to existing references. The object was the sound one of avoiding a clash with the Restrictive Practices Court but, on reflection, we think that this exception is not necessary. I do not say that we would, but we could conceivably need the power of review up to the moment at which the Part I element, at any rate, of the restrictions dealt with in the undertaking was brought before the Court. Thereafter, the review power would in any event be irrelevant, because from that moment onwards it would be clearly the Court itself which made an order within the compass of matters which Parliament had determined were to come before it under Part I of the Act.
In those circumstances, we think that the simplest thing is to leave Section 12 of the Monopolies Act as it stands, and to use it as appropriate when and where these matters are within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Mr. Jay: Does the President of the Board of Trade mean that in a case where there has been a report of the Monopolies Commission under the original Act, and as a result of that certain assurances have been given by a firm or industry, he is now proposing that the Board of Trade should retain power to review the working of those assurances from the time the Bill becomes law, until such time as that type of agreement becomes subject to registration? If that is so, I do not think that we will quarrel with him.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: That is exactly the position and I think that it is a sensible arrangement.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES UNDER S. 10 OF ACT OF 1948.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 22, line 27, to leave out from "ten" to the end of line 31 and to insert:
declare whether or not any restrictions by virtue of which the said Part I would apply to the agreement (not being such restrictions as are described in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (5) of section six of this Act) are contrary to the public interest.

(3) Where the Restrictive Practices Court makes a declaration under the last foregoing subsection in relation to a restriction proposed to be accepted under any agreement, any order in force under the said section ten shall cease to have effect in so far as it renders unlawful the making or carrying out of an agreement under which that restriction is accepted; and the provisions of subsection (2) of section fifteen of this Act shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to any such declaration as aforesaid as they apply in relation to a finding under that section".
With this Amendment, Sir, I think we might discuss those to lines 38 and 41.
The Amendments deal with the question of enforcement under the 1948 Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act. At present, the method of enforcement is an order by the competent authority. The time will come when the Court will be dealing with those of the restrictive arrangements which fall under Part I of the Act. At that moment the responsibility for enforcement—not of the undertaking, but of the order of the Court—will be and should properly be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Court. The responsibility of the competent authority will lapse.
I am sure that that is the right arrangement to ensure that there can be no possibility of any clash between the Restrictive Practices Court and any competent authority.

Mr. E. Fletcher: It is not clear why the exception, which is contained in the opening part of the Amendment where it deals with an agreement
(not being such restrictions as are described in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (5) of section six of this Act),
is limited to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). One would have thought that it was also necessary to include a reference to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of Section 6. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why paragraph (a) of that subsection is excluded and treated differently?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Paragraphs (b) to (d) must obviously be excluded, because they deal with overseas trading. Indeed, nobody can make an order about that—neither the Court nor the Monopolies Commission—because none of us can control in that sense what happens in the way of overseas trading. Paragraph (a) would refer to restrictions affecting exports. It would not be competent for the Court to make an order referring to the pure export agreements which are


referred to in paragraph (a), because that is a matter which comes under Section 25 of the Act, where it is gathered up and brought into the cognisance of the Monopolies Commission. The pure export agreement remains subject to an order of a competent authority. That is the provision which we have made in this case, and that is why that particular paragraph is excluded.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 38, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert:
subsections (2) and (3)".
In page 22, line 41, leave out from "to" to end of line 42 and insert:
the said provisions".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8, to leave out "three" and to insert "four".
This Amendment follows a suggestion which was made in Committee. There was then an Amendment to delay the application for a period of five years, rather than the three-year period which was specified. This seems to be a judicious compromise between those two views, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. John Cronin: It would be ungracious for this side of the House not to express some satisfaction with the compromise of the President of the Board of Trade. In Committee, I suggested that we should have a four-year period instead of a three-year or five-year period, which were the two opposing suggestions. The compromise is in keeping with the highest traditions of the House and the affability with which the President of the Board of Trade has taken part in our proceedings today.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXPORT AGREEMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 23, line 15, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)".— [Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause 30.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 25, line 29, after "minerals", to insert "newspapers and periodicals".
I should begin by declaring an interest as one who has always, when not in the

Government's service, earned his livelihood through the newspaper industry. I am bound to say, however, that that does not affect the view I take on this matter. We want to ask the President of the Board of Trade for an assurance that newspapers and periodicals are included in the term "goods", which governs the whole operation of the Bill.
We ask for this assurance because at present rather disturbing restrictive practices operate in the newspaper world as well as in so much of the rest of British industry. I am informed on good authority that the following series of events has occurred in recent months. A few months ago, Hulton Press, a well-known publishing firm, decided to publish a Sunday newspaper and, indeed, publicly announced that it intended to do so.
Hulton Press found that it could not effectively do that unless it became a member of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, a well-known association of newspaper owners, because without such membership it could not obtain facilities in the matter of newspaper trains, and so on, without which, in practice, it is impossible to distribute a newspaper. The N.P.A. informed Hulton Press, so I understand, that it was prepared to permit the newspaper to become a member of that organisation, provided that Hulton's accepted the terms for distribution laid down by another body, the Newsagents' Federation.
When Hulton's applied to the Federation to ask that it should be given the normal distributive facilities on terms which alone could enable it to become a member of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, it was informed by the Federation that the Federation regarded the new publication not as a newspaper, but only as a periodical.
7.0 p.m.
That, of course, would mean raising the discount which the distributors, the members of the Federation, would get from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent., and that, in the view of Hulton's, rightly or wrongly. made it uneconomic to distribute the paper. In any case, it was possible after a time, I gather, to satisfy the Federation that the proposed newspaper was on its merits, or by whatever test is applied, a newspaper and not a periodical.
At that stage, the Federation is alleged to have changed its ground and to have


said that, although the proposed new Sunday Star, as it was to be called, was, in fact, a newspaper, nevertheless the Federation proposed to charge the discount of 33⅓ for this one particular Sunday newspaper as opposed to the 25 per cent. charged for all the rest. If that proposal had been accepted, the other condition laid down by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association would have been broken, because this paper would not have been distributed on the same terms as other Sunday newspapers.
Therefore, a situation appears to have been reached, if the facts are as stated—and I think that they are—in which these two bodies between them successfully prevented the publication of a new newspaper. It may be—I imagine that it is so—that the reasons for this action were, in this case, purely business and economic ones. It was not desired, maybe by some people, to have a further competitor in the field, or else it was felt that the margin the distribution would earn would not be sufficient, in their opinion, to justify their doing the job.
That may be, and it is very undesirable, but it appears—I have only mentioned this briefly, but it raises serious issues—that we have reached a stage in this industry where two or perhaps one of two trade associations can, in effect, prevent the publication of a new newspaper. So far as the public knows or can foresee, what is done in one case for economic reasons may conceivably be done for political reasons in another.
I think that all of us in this House are opposed to the control of newspapers, except perhaps in the extreme form such as we discussed in the horror comics Bill, even by Parliament and the Government, but I should have thought that we certainly do not want the control of newspapers by self-constituted bodies of traders in trade associations.
I hope that the President can assure us that by the definitions of this Bill newspapers and periodicals do count as goods and, therefore, that such arrangements as I have described would at least come within the registration powers of the Bill and would be within the competence of the Registrar, even if he could not do anything else, to have them examined in due course before the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Without expressing any views about the way in which newspapers may arrange their affairs, I can give the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman asks for, that "goods" include newspapers and periodicals.

Sir L. Plummer: May I ask another question of the President of the Board of Trade, arising out of his answer? Would an agreement between a group of newsagents and newspaper publishers that, by virtue of the fact that the group of newsagents sell the publishers' products, the publishers refuse to supply anyone else entering the trade without their permission, be covered by this Bill?
To give an example, if a man wants to start a news-agency and open a newsagent's shop, before he is able to do so the Federation of Retail Newsagents will say, "We want to see, first, whether the distance limit operates". That is to say, they lay down, I think in co-operation with the newspaper proprietors, that a man may not open a newsagent's shop if there is another newsagent's shop within a given distance of his shop.
If the Federation is satisfied that opening the new shop would be breaking the distance limit, it then puts that case to the publishers. The publishers then investigate and, if they find that that is so, they refuse supplies to the man who wants to be a newsagent. This seems to be clearly an agreement which is restrictive of trade. Would such an agreement be registerable under the Clauses of the Bill?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I always rather hesitate to answer this kind of question off the cuff, but, following the hon. Gentleman's explanation of a case of that kind, my answer would be that the answer would appear to be, yes, such an arrangement would be restrictive within the terms of Clause 5 of the Bill and would be liable to registration.
Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEEDINGS OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Amendments made: In page 27, line 28, leave out "or in Northern Ireland".

In line 31, at end insert:
(c) in the case of proceedings in Northern Ireland, to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, after "paragraph" to insert:
to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland shall be by way of case stated and any such appeal".
This Amendment follows the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) during the Committee stage, that the appeal should be by way of case stated. We thought it right to meet that suggestion and incorporate it in the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I thank the President for having accepted this suggestion, which we think will be an improvement of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 34, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 35 and insert:
Except so far as may be provided by rules made in pursuance of paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section eighteen of this Act, the Court shall not have power to order the payment of costs by".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 27, line 36, to leave out paragraph 10 and insert:
10. In relation to the attendance and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement of its orders, and all other matters incidental to its jurisdiction under this Act, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, have the like powers, rights, privileges and authority—

(a) in England and Wales, as the High Court;
(b) in Scotland, as the Court of Session:
(c) in Northern Ireland, as the High Court of Northern Ireland.

11. Every person who has the right of audience at the trial of an action in the High Court or in the Court of Session, or in proceedings preliminary to such a trial, shall have the like right at the hearing of any application to the Court, whether sitting in England and Wales or in Scotland, or in proceedings preliminary to such a hearing, as the case may be; and every person who has the right of audience at the trial of an action in the High Court of Northern Ireland, or in proceedings preliminary to such a trial, shall have the like right at the hearing of any application to the Court when sitting in Northern Ireland, or in proceedings preliminary to such a hearing, as the case may be.
This Amendment does two things. First, it picks up the provisions for the enforcement of the orders of the Restrictive Practices Court—originally they were in Clause 2 of the Bill, but it is thought

more convenient to incorporate them in the Schedule—and it confers in express terms on the new Court the High Court powers in relation to the attendance and examination of witnesses and the production and inspection of documents.
Secondly, it deals with the right of audience, by simply providing for a common right of audience between the English and Scottish Bars in England and Scotland, and the exclusive right of audience in Northern Ireland for the Northern Irish Bar, which I understand is what is desired and agreeable between them.

Mr. E. Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) must wait until we have got rid of paragraph 10, and then we will consider what words, including his Amendment to this Amendment, we shall put in its place.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: One point of some importance arises on this Amendment. Before the Amendment appeared, I thought the position was to be that discovery and inspection of documents was covered by Clause 18 of the Bill. Discovery and inspection of documents in this Court will be a very important matter, and will give rise to distinctive problems of a character with which the present rules of court relating to discovery will not be appropriate to deal.
Until I saw this Amendment, I had anticipated that this matter would be dealt with under the rules under Clause 18. That has been altered, and, as I understand the position, instead of, as we had anticipated, there being new rules of court governing discovery and inspection in the quite distinctive type of matter arising in this jurisdiction, the present rules are, by this Amendment, to be made applicable. I think that that is unfortunate, and that the jurisdiction now being conferred is so different in character from that to which one is accustomed that it would be desirable to have new rules to deal with this matter, more especially as, when it comes to probing the issues of public interest in terms of commercial and trade policy, entirely new principles in respect of discovery and inspection of documents will surely apply.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I wish to speak to the Question which you, Mr. Speaker, have put to the House, before I move my Amendment.
I do not think that the President did himself justice in recommending this new provision. He seemed to indicate that it was a very slight and rather irrelevant matter, and he treated it as being agreed. I hope that the House will notice that it is a most startling innovation in the whole of our legal and judicial arrangements, and one which should be most carefully considered before we part with it. This Amendment, which has been put down by the President at a very late stage, introduces something which is not only of vital importance to our consideration of this Bill, but which has a much wider application. For the first time the President is suggesting that members of the Scottish Bar should be given a right of audience in an English court.
There is no need for me to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there is the greatest possible difference between English and Scots law, both in its origin and its history and tradition. Scots law is based on the old Roman law; English law has a totally different origin and history, with the result that in Great Britain we have two totally different conceptions of law. I am glad to note that the Lord Advocate is in the Chamber. As the most distinguished member of the Scottish Bar in this House, I am sure that he will agree that it has never been previously suggested since the Act of Union—and obviously it could not have been suggested before—that there should be this curious amalgamation of English and Scots law, giving the Scots lawyers a right of audience in an English court and English lawyers a right of audience in a Scottish court.
7.15 p.m.
Before the House parts with this Amendment we must see where it would lead us. The President gave no reasons why this course was recommended. He said it had been agreed. Agreed by whom? So far as I know, it does not result from any request from the English bar or from the Law Society. Is it something which has been put forward on behalf of the Scottish Bar? I cannot imagine any other origin for it. How can it be justified? The English Court will sit in England and the Scottish Court will sit in Scotland.
It is perfectly true that there is a common Court of Appeal, in the House of Lords, but when appeals come to the House of Lords from Scotland, they are argued by members of the Scottish Bar, because Scottish law is involved. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would be horrified if you thought that matters of Scots law were being argued in a Scottish court or in the House of Lords by English lawyers. Equally it seems to me foreign to our conception of the right of audience that Scots lawyers should invade what has hitherto been a jealously guarded preserve of members of the English Bar. Therefore, I am opposed to this suggestion.
I know that after we have had a full debate on this matter and studied its implications to the uttermost, the Government, by their majority, will be able to carry the Amendment in the Division Lobbies. How far this question has been ventilated, either in the legal profession or in the Press or by the public, I do not know. I have seen no reference to it at all. One reason why I raise the matter now is because of the air of mystery and assumed innocence with which at the last moment it has been proposed to the House.
If the principle is conceded that this Court which we are setting up should not be given the same status as the High Court and the Supreme Court, in which members called to the English Bar have a right of audience, are we to accept the principle that there should be some innovation of doctrine, and that we should allow laymen the right of audience? After all, however distinguished they may be, and as the Lord Advocate would agree, Scottish lawyers are laymen in an English court. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment is to give laymen the right of audience in this English Court.
I appreciate that the Court we are setting up will not be equivalent in status to the High Court. True, it will be a court of record, but it will not be a court to which the traditions of the Judicature Act, which established the present Supreme Court and which carry on the traditions of the old civil courts, will apply. This will be a purely statutory court, governed by the precise limited jurisdiction and powers of the Bill which we are now considering. In setting up such a court it is quite possible for Parliament to decide what shall be the right of audience.
This is not the first time Parliament has set up new courts. We have set up a number of tribunals in recent years under various Acts of Parliament, administrative tribunals and tribunals for this purpose and that. In those cases either one or other of two principles has been observed. Either we preserve the exclusive right of audience to members of the English Bar—and there is a case for that in the traditions of the High Court, or we depart from that principle and extend the right of audience, for which very cogent reasons can also be argued, to others. There are several precedents for extending it to solicitors, trade union representatives, officials of various kinds and secretaries of companies, and throwing the gates wide open. I am sure that I shall have the support of my hon. Friends in saying that there is a great deal to be said for that.
If we are to have a new tribunal and make a departure from the principle of a privilege for members of the English Bar. we should throw the rights of audience wider, both in the interests of the parties themselves and in the interests of other persons with forensic experience, training. skill and expertise in the particular branch of the subject which is to be debated.
I say to the President that he can choose one or other of those two principles, but he cannot choose both. He has chosen to say that this Court shall not be like the High Court, and that audience shall not be restricted to members of the English Bar. That in itself is something which diminishes the status and prestige of the Court. I do not object to that because it has been conceded by the President before that, although this is to be a court of record. it will be a court of an inferior status to the High Court in the sense that certiorari would lie. If it exceeds the jurisdiction which Parliament gives it, certiorari will lie, as in the case of any other inferior court.
This is not to be a case in which exclusive right of audience is restricted to members of the English Bar. If that principle is accepted, which is what the President has done, it is quite unjustifiable and anomalous to say that we will admit one other special class of persons and give them a right of audience and select mem-

bers of a foreign Bar: I do not use the word "foreign" offensively—I mean non-national. We shall be admitting practitioners from some other country who have no possible claim to have qualified in England, and shall be giving them a right of audience. If that is the principle for which the President is contending, we say that is quite irrational, but, if that is to be done, we must not stop there, we must at least extend the rights of audience, in the interests of the parties themselves, to other persons, I am not quite sure how far we should go, but I suggest that at any rate we should include qualified English solicitors—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now anticipating his Amendment. We have not reached that yet, and we cannot reach it until the House agrees that the words proposed to be left out shall be left out of the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I did not realise that it would be so convenient to divide my remarks into two stages. Having said what I want to say on the main question. I will leave the arguments which I want to adduce in support of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment until we reach that Amendment.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I do not propose to follow very far what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said, because I gather that we may hear it again in a few minutes, and I will reply to it then. I would go so far as to say this, which I think is in order on the Amendment which we are discussing, that with regard to the prospect of seeing some members of the Scots Bar in London I cannot myself feel any anxious fears. I do not know the Scots Bar, but I have heard that there are some quite capable gentlemen who practise at the Scottish Bar. From my point of view I think it might be quite an interesting experience to see them, so to speak, set up against the members of the English Bar in competition.
I would not express any serious objection to the course proposed in that respect by the President, but I should like to refer to some expressions which fell from the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) about the possibility of there being the same system under the rules for discovery and production, etc.


in the High Court and in the Restrictive Practices Court. I think the hon. Member has referred to a point which, from the purely practical point of view, might lead to a certain amount of difficulty, if not confusion, in the early stages until the work of the Restrictive Practices Court has settled down.
I understand that, broadly, the situation is that on every occasion on which the Registrar requires his statutory authority to be enlarged by a judicial decision he will go to the High Court in all matters appertaining to registration. It will only be when, in accordance with Clause 15, an application is made for consideration of an agreement that the Restrictive Practices Court will come into operation.
Many of the documents which will be the subject of discovery will be documents which will be discovered in both proceedings, if proceedings take place in the High Court. Therefore, it may be a matter of some difficulty if the rules governing that discovery are different in the two courts. I should have thought it would have been a pity, at any rate until we see how we get on in the two courts, for the rules not to be as nearly the same as possible. In so far as we are seeking to make the Restrictive Practices Court pari passu and as nearly the same as the High Court as it can be, I think it desirable that the rules applicable to each should be as nearly the same as circumstances permit.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I may have the permission of the House to do so, I will answer one or two points which have been made. First, with regard to the question of rules of discovery, the rule-making power is retained under Clause 18 (2, b). That is the answer to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). The power is retained, and the Lord Chancellor will have powers under that subsection for making rules as to discovery, etc. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks). I do not think it would be fitting for me to comment on the precise nature of the rules which ought to be made or on the need for similarity of the rules with the rules of the High Court, except to say that I will draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the points made by both

hon. Members, and no doubt he will give his consideration to them in applying his mind to that matter.
With reference to the points so eloquently put by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on the subject of the Scottish Bar, I think it would be a pity if a debate on a Bill designed to remove restrictive practices should end in a demarcation dispute. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member press for that. I should have thought it would have been a liberal and proper provision for Scottish lawyers to appear, on occasion, before this Court.
7.30 p.m.
I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has been appearing with great skill in a Scottish appeal in the House of Lords recently, leading a Scottish and an English junior. I am certain that his knowledge of Roman law was fully adequate to the task which he had to discharge at that time. There are, of course, perfectly good precedents for a common right of audience of this kind. I understand that it was the procedure followed before the Railway and Canal Commission, and it is also followed in courts-martial.
When we are dealing with advocates in Scotland or barristers in England, I see no reason whatever why, in the general liberal spirit of the Bill, they should not both appear before this United Kingdom Court. Limiting it to that and not extending it to everybody else—since that is all we can discuss on this Amendment—I should have thought that it was a proper, wise and liberal provision, and I commend it to the House.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph 11, after the first "Court". to insert "or in the County Court".
The House has agreed to delete paragraph 10 and has done so, as the President pointed out, because this is a Bill to remove restrictive practices; and he has appealed to the liberal spirit of the proceedings in which we are engaged. I have put my two Amendments down


precisely in that spirit. We are all with the President in wanting to remove restrictive practices.
If the right of audience is to be extended to members of the English Bar and members of the Scottish Bar, then, logically, it should also be extended to English solicitors and, where there are companies which cannot appear in person, to the qualified secretaries of those companies or other chosen representatives.
As the President has said, this is a liberal Measure. We are abolishing restrictive practices. Solicitors are fully qualified in the English law, just as are English barristers, and they have a right of audience in the county courts, and, in fact, in all other courts in the land except the High Court. As the President has recognised, the Restrictive Practices Court is not parallel with the High Court; it may be analogous to it, but in the President's own Amendment he is introducing a departure.
Having made this innovation, it will not derogate from the prestige of the court in any way if, in the same spirit as that of the President's Amendment, the right of audience is extended to all members of the legal profession and, in the event of companies which cannot appear before the court, to qualified secretaries or anyone they choose to represent them. It is in that spirit that I move my Amendment, which I hope the President will accept.

Mr. Grimond: Would the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) make it clear that he has no prejudice against Scottish solicitors, Writers to the Signet or others who appear to be excluded by his Amendment?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not prejudiced against Writers to the Signet. If the hon. Member puts down an Amendment to add "Writers to the Signet", I will welcome it, but they are, in fact, covered by my second Amendment.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I assume that we can speak to both Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). The right hon. Gentleman is asking that Scottish barristers should be admitted to these courts in

England—and I do not blame him; I think he is right and that there should be as much competition and as wide a choice as we can possibly get. People should have as wide a choice as possible in choosing who they want to represent them in a court of this description.
In the branch of the profession of which I have the honour to be a member, we consider, on occasions—not always—that there are certain members who can present a case—and I say this with the greatest respect and due deference to members of the other branch of the profession—equally as well as, if not in many instances much better than, those who appear in some High Court cases. Sometimes we sit with considerable trepidation listening to counsel presenting the case, which we think we might have presented much better.
We probably know the facts as well as the advocate putting them forward, and in some cases we probably know them in a little more detail than he does. We know the general reaction of some members of the Bar when we attempt to intervene. We know they become irritated and try to fob off the person who is instructing them, who usually knows the case inside out, and who is himself irritated because counsel is not putting the case as well as he should.
I do not suggest that that applies to any hon. Member; no one would dream of suggesting that. I will go as far as to say that no one would dream of suggesting it about any hon. Member on either side of the House. But it applies in some cases to counsel who are not as well equipped and as able to present a case as those we hear presenting cases in the House from time to time.
Seriously, I think it is high time that the people who prepare a case, who interview those connected with it and who have to handle the whole matter up to the court hearing, should be allowed to continue with the case. It works extremely well in other tribunals, such as the rent tribunals, where this hard-and-fast rule about a member of the Bar appearing has not been exercised. The time of the courts and the expense to the parties would be considerably reduced if an opportunity were given to the solicitor to appear. Not every solicitor wants to appear in court; comparatively speaking, very few want to appear, or feel capable


of appearing, in cases. But those who want to appear in court ought not to be prevented from doing so.
That applies to other persons. A company may have confidence in someone and wish him to appear on its behalf before a court. In the second of my hon. Friend's Amendments we suggest that a company should, under seal, be entitled to appoint a person—anybody at all—to conduct its case in these courts. Why not? If the party to the case is prepared to trust its case to someone, why not let it be done? It may save the party considerable expense. The party may feel, rightly, that in a court of this description it is not necessary for the advocate to have the legal training which a barrister or even a solicitor has.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder to which Amendment the hon. Member is addressing his mind. We are dealing only with the Amendment in line 9, after the first "Court", to insert "or in the County Court".

Mr. Janner: I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that we could speak to both the Amendments to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: No. The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not selected.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Not selected, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Janner: I abide by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, but I was under the impression, quite wrongly, that when I asked whether we could deal with the two Amendments together you intimated that we could. In the circumstances, I will revert to the Amendment about solicitors, which obviously means that no one other than barristers or solicitors can appear in the Court, except the party himself. I had thought that it might have been possible to deal with the two Amendments together because, in a sense, the arguments are similar.
I would at least ask the President to say that a person trained in the law, one who passes examinations which are—and I say this with the greatest respect—as hard as or harder than those which the barrister has to pass, should be allowed

to appear. The examinations are in respect of precisely the same law, and, in my view, are harder, because the solicitor has to pass in every subject whereas the barrister is not so bound. Again, the solicitor must have had from three to five years' practical experience of the law. He has to see a case through from its inception to its end, with the exception of pleading in the High Court.
I say that such a person, who has such qualifications—and the ability—should not only not be excluded from going into these courts but should be encouraged to do so, because he will not only do it equally well as counsel but such a practice would save a considerable amount of expense to the parties concerned. I therefore support my hon. Friend's Amendment, in the hope that by its acceptance there will perhaps be an opening of the door to something even better. I refer to the merging of the two branches of the profession—but perhaps that is a little out of order at this stage. Nevertheless, if solicitors are allowed to practise in these courts it will be seen that there is advantage to both branches of the law, and something further may emerge.

Mr. Mulley: In supporting the Amendment, perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that there is a feeling at the Bar that there is now too much rather than too little competition. Indeed, if barristers behaved very frequently towards their professional clients as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has indicated is sometimes the case they would probably feel the wind of competition even more keenly. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will extend the excellent liberal sentiments he professed earlier and widen the scope of the Bill in regard to those who can appear before the Court. I hope, in particular, that he will explain why it is right for Scottish barristers to come to the English courts and vice versa but that Northern Ireland is in another category.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I am sorry to say that I must reveal a split in the profession on this issue. At this hour I do not think that the House would wish to embark on a full-dress debate on whether or not solicitors ought to be permitted right of audience in the


High Court. I differ from those hon. Gentlemen, members of my profession, who have already spoken on this matter, but what I do wish to emphasis is that, whether it be right or wrong that solicitors should be so permitted, this is not the occasion to seek to introduce it.
I do not think that anyone in the profession would wish it to appear that we had got in by the back door, which is what we should be doing if, on the final Amendment to an Amendment, at the end of the Schedule to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, we secured for ourselves a foothold to audience in the High Court. I am quite sure that that would not be the wish of the profession as a whole, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will not press his Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Darling: I am sorry that the second Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not to be called, but as that is the case I shall be brief in order to keep within the bounds of order. If I understand it rightly, I welcome the step which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in introducing an Amendment which, as he said, is liberal in character. Our criticism is that it does not go far enough.
There is another point. This Bill deals with restrictive practices, yet right from the beginning, unless I am mistaken, the job of dealing with restrictive practices is handed over to a profession which itself is absolutely full of restrictive practices, as we have discovered from this present brief discussion. By the practices of the profession and of the courts themselves, people are kept out of the courts who could, I think, present cases better than the barristers who appear.
Unless we allow people other than barristers to appear on behalf of companies, organisations, associations, etc., that will be affected by the Bill, we shall be perpetuating the restrictive practices of this profession in the operation of a court set up to get rid of restrictive practices. That is illogical and wrong. I think that these restrictive practices, not only in trade and industry—and, perhaps, in trade unions—but in the legal and other professions, ought to be broken down.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The only question I have to ask the President is whether there is any reason why a
… secretary or any other person duly authorised under its Common Seal".
ought not to appear on behalf of any of these companies. The answer is that there is no reason whatever.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: That Amendment is not called.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to say that I am most strongly opposed to the fusion of the barrister and solicitor branches of the profession. I have said that in this House before, and I still strongly hold that view. Secondly, we on this side of the House welcome the extension of right of audience to members of the Scottish Bar, with whom we have had in the past the most happy relationships at the English Bar.
I now come to the difficulty which is facing the Government in respect of their own proposals when read in conjunction with the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). My hon. Friend developed the case extremely comprehensively, forcibly and cogently, if I may say so with respect, and I do not wish to pass over the same ground at all. What I wish to do is to stress the points which to me appear most material for consideration.
The whole difficulty which arises in connection with the Government Amendment and our own arises from the appalling muddle into which the Government have got by making this extraordinary Court, with a justiciable issue, and with lay members and a High Court judge constituting that Court. That is the source of many of the Government's difficulties in connection with this Bill. If, of course, it were a truly justiciable issue which was put before the tribunal, there would be no difficulty at all, because it would be a matter of law within the ambit of a High Court judge, and a High Court judge would be the appropriate person to deal with it.
But, of course, although the Government call this matter a justiciable issue, it is not that at all. It is an economic issue, and for that reason they have added lay members to the tribunal. Once they have added lay members to the tribunal,


they take it outside the High Court. Having been taken outside the High Court, it is just a tribunal, and no questions of exclusive right of audience or anything of that kind apply any longer.
Thus, this body being a tribunal, the Government can bring forward, as they have quite rightly done, a proposal that members of the Scottish Bar may practise before it. We welcome that proposal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East has said, however, great as our respect is for members of the Scottish Bar, they are, in English courts, laymen. There is no reason why members of the Northern Ireland Bar should not appear. They are not included in the Government's proposal, but there is no reason why they should not be. There is no reason why members of the French Bar, of the South African Bar, or any other Bar should not appear.
What the Government are doing is to provide a right of audience for members of the Scottish Bar, without any sort of logical foundation which would justify a distinction between them and any other laymen who might wish to appear before the Court. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for us to see how one can draw a line, once members of the Scottish Bar, who, as I say, are laymen before the English courts, are admitted. There is no question of law common to the two countries involved, because, when there is an appeal and there is a question of law to be decided, what happens is that the matter goes by case stated to the Court of Appeal. When it goes to the Court of Appeal on case stated, for a decision on a point of law, the English barrister alone has right of audience, and the Scottish barrister has no right at all, with the ridiculous result that a member of the Scottish Bar can practise before the Restrictive Practices Court, but when a case is stated for appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal in England, that member of the Scottish Bar can no longer act for his client and plead on the point of law before the Court of Appeal. It is clear that considerations of law were not the motive in bringing in members of the Scottish Bar to appear before the Court.
As I say, there is no wish on our part to exclude members of the Scottish Bar, but the point is that their position makes it perfectly clear that they are laymen, in the conception of the Government in

introducing this proposal to give them right of audience. They are laymen, having no right of audience before the Court of Appeal on a point of law. The same principle should accordingly apply to solicitors in this country, for instance, and indeed to any other persons whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Industrial Court, saying that Scottish barristers have a right of audience there. Of course they have. So have laymen; the right is not confined to members of the Scottish Bar. A court-martial is a special case, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, there were rather acute debates in this House about courts-martial, and in courts-martial the provisions of law are considered to be common to Scotsmen and Englishmen in the Army. Special provision was made for that; but, be it noted, there was a right of appeal on a point of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
There is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of which a Scottish barrister can appear. In other words, members of the Scottish Bar are treated as laymen. If they are so treated, and accepted, within the conception of this scheme, that right should not be limited to members of the Scottish Bar.
The Amendment which is before the House extends right of audience to those who practise before the county court. There is no anxiety on our part to extend a privilege to solicitors only; that is no part of our intention at all. If I may say so with respect, while one completely accepts and bows to the Ruling, it is regrettable, from our point of view, that the Amendment which has been selected is the one dealing with solicitors and not the second Amendment, which deals with laymen generally. We put forward the Amendment dealing with solicitors merely as an example of the principle which we are advancing, namely, that this is a tribunal before which, if it is appropriate for any class of laymen at all to appear, then it is appropriate for all laymen to appear. It seems to us that the President is in a quite impossible position in resisting this Amendment, and we shall have to press it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: All of us, I am sure, on both sides of the House, hold all branches of the legal profession in the very highest regard. We are not here trying to judge between them in any way


at all. Those of us who have been in the advocate side of the profession, even if only for rather a short time in early Me, like myself, learn to respect the sister profession of the solicitor.
I wondered whether we were ending the debate on restrictive practices in quite the right spirit. As I listened to the debate on this particular point flashing backwards and forwards, I felt glad that we had restricted the Bill to cover goods and had not expended it to labour or services.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has, if I may say so, put two cases, and has put both of them extremely well. He suggested, first, that we really should restrict this rigidly to the English Bar and not allow a Scottish advocate to cross the Tweed; and, secondly, he said that we should throw it open, restricted only by the rules of order, to anybody, whether legally qualified or not. I must say that I could not help feeling that the hon. Gentleman ought to be entitled to appear before any court.
I am not really an advocate at all now; I only try to follow these events and arguments. I dare say there is something in what the hon. and learn Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has said, that Scottish advocates

are, in a sense, laymen in English courts. I must say, however, that it is going a long way beyond extending a common right of audience to say that one can reopen the whole question of right of audience in what I regard and hope will be regarded generally as the equivalent of the High Court. I do not think it is necessary to settle that issue, which is a wider issue in the legal profession.

I am only anxious to preserve the position of this Court. While it differs in certain respects from divisions of the High Court, I am anxious that it should be treated in the same way, that cases should be presented in the same manner, and with the same traditions as in the High Court. I am confident that the arrangements we have made here will lead to that end, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why Northern Ireland is separately treated?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Northern Ireland, in this sense, may be a little less liberal than Scotland. It is what they desired in the matter, and I am not prepared to judge between them in any other sense.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 180.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[7.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur


Albu, A. H.
Fienburgh, W.
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson


Anderson, Frank
Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Benson, G.
Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton W. W.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hayman, F. H
Mulley, F. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Owen, W. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, J.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paton, John


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, T. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Dye, S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lawson, G. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pryde, D. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Randall, H. E.




Rankin, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Redhead, E. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stross, Dr Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Swingler, S. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woof, R. E.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Skeffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Grimond, J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Harris. Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey


Atkins, H. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.


Balniel, Lord
Hay, John
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Barter, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Partridge, E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Black, C. W.
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Body, R. F.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Raikes, Sir Victor


Boothby, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rawlinson, Peter


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Braine, B. R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hyde, Montgomery
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Shepherd, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Speir, R. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Currie, G. B. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Keegan, D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kimball, M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Teeling, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Errington, Sir Erie
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Vosper, U F.


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fort, R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Foster, John
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmhe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Webbe, Sir H.


Freeth, D. K.
Maddan, Martin
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Marshall, Douglas
Woollam, John Victor


Gower, H. R.
Mathew, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Green, A.
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Bryan.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the House for its assistance on the Bill. We have had a long, constructive and good-tempered debate upon the various provisions in the Bill, which are complicated and in places controversial. The Bill has passed through its various stages unchanged as far as its principles are concerned but certainly improved in its clarity, in its precision and, in some respects, in the machinery which is used for its implementation. All sides of the House have contributed to that result.
Obviously, I cannot present the Bill, in the form in which we are discussing it on Third Reading, as an entirely uncontroversial Measure. Hon. Members opposite have contested its central feature of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, but I am quite certain that hon. and right hon. Members, on all sides of the House, wish it success in the objectives which it sets out to achieve.
We on this side believe in a system of free competitive enterprise, but that system must be defended not only on its success but on the fact that arrangements which may be made under it are not only fair, but can demonstrably be shown to be fair. One method—at least, one which is well understood—of demonstrating that things are fair in this country is that they should be judged not simply by industry itself, nor even by politicians and by Governments, but by courts working and operating upon criteria which from time to time are laid down by Parliament.
The Bill marks an adaptation in our judicial system designed to meet the present-day economic needs. We deliberately seek to substitute the impartial and informed judgment of a court for the day to day cut and thrust of Parliamentary dispute about issues of this character. We do not believe that Parliament or the courts or the public or industry will suffer from this change.
Obviously, no Bill which deals with this vast and difficult subject can solve all these great problems at a single blow. The Bill is not the only nor, I suppose, will it be the final approach, but I think

I can claim that it marks a really important landmark in this field of policy and is an advance on anything which has gone before. I am satisfied that it includes the main range of devices which are designed to restrict competition, and it is right that it should. Some of them may or may not be justified, but what is certain is that they must all of them be open to examination.
I am equally satisfied—and I attach considerable importance to this, too—that the Bill excludes the great range of ordinary commercial agreements and arrangements to which no exception is normally taken in our public affairs, and which must be allowed to go on without constant inquiry and examination. It provides a method of registration and judicial examination which will, I think, prove equitable and efficient.
Apart from the Court, we retain the Monopolies Commission. We retain it, as has been pointed out in debate, in a more limited field. All I would say about the Monopolies Commission is this. I think we should pay a tribute to its Chairman and members. If it had not been for the work which they have done over a number of years now and under different Governments we should not have had this Bill at all. It would have been quite impossible to have devised or constructed a Measure of this character. It was based not only on their large-scale Report on collective discrimination, but upon the sum total of knowledge which they were able to bring to bear in a great number of Reports dealing with very different and diverse problems. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
It is important, I believe, to preserve clearly a demarcation line between their future responsibilities, which are also important, and the responsibilities of the Court. There is a case for a judicial solution of some of these problems. There is a case for administrative or executive solutions. There is no case at all for an overlap of responsibility. If we had that overlap we should have the worst of both worlds, and one of the features of this Measure which we now invite the House to read the Third time is that it does preserve that division between the Monopolies Commission on the one hand and the Restrictive Trade Practices Court upon the other.
So far as the problems of resale price maintenance are concerned, I think that the Bill provides an important new advance. Maintaining prices is a practice which may be justified, but there are certainly many other factors and problems which confront us today besides the maintenance of prices, not least of all that of how to get the prices down. In this Measure we have struck is the right balance.
The public generally will be glad to see the end of collective enforcement of resale price maintenance, with the massive and complicated arrangements for private courts and stop lists and the rest. At the same time, I am satisfied that the new legal right for individual enforcement, which the Bill now contains, is adequate to guard against those dangers, which have been genuinely stressed as important, of the loss-leader and the like.
The Bill is a long-term operation. No one will suggest that it will have a sudden, immediate, and dramatic effect, but it will, I believe, make a contribution, and, in my judgment, an important contribution, to the competitive strength of the United Kingdom and to the condition of free and largely unfettered enterprise which we in Her Majesty's Government are satisfied is necessary if we are to solve the economic problems of today.

8.16 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like, first, to congratulate the President upon his handling of the Bill. He has handled it with skill, with knowledge and with courtesy, and it has been a comparatively pleasant task, so far as opposition involves pleasantness, to oppose him on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman could not have handled the Bill in the way in which he has handled it without a complete and thorough understanding of all its detailed provisions.
We differ, of course, about much in the Bill. We agree, at any rate—that is, the Government and the Opposition, for I am not going to speak for all Members on the back benches on the Government side —that the object of the Bill is a right object, that we should eliminate pernicious restrictive practices. We differ on method, and we say that on method the Government have here produced an ineffective muddle. On details there have been, as the President indicated, improvements, and quite substantial improvements, but

improvements which will leave the main conception and structure of the Government's policy in the Bill not substantially affected.
The registration provisions of the Bill we have supported throughout. We think it is a right and proper course to take to ensure registration. How far registration will be effective of itself to lead to any decrease in restrictive practices remains to be seen. It will depend largely upon public opinion how far, as a result of exposing what those restrictive practices and agreements are, the agreements themselves are modified. The penalties in the Bill, if one were not relying on public opinion but on the actual provisions which the Government make for ensuring registration, although appreciably improved in Committee and on Report, are utterly inadequate.
The approach to the prohibitions themselves is different on the two sides of the House. Throughout we have favoured a general prohibition, with provisions for a narrow range of exceptions. The Government have adopted that in one case, the case of the collective boycott to enforce resale price maintenance, and we welcome the general prohibition which is contained in the Clause which deals with that. It is the principle of that Clause which we should have liked to have seen very much further extended.
The result of the Government's proposal, that there should be no prohibition until, in each case, the matter is examined by the Court set up by the Bill, with a queue waiting for the examination of each case, is that the method of examining the cases becomes of crucial importance. It would be comparatively unimportant if a scheme were adopted of a general prohibition with examination of a narrow range of exceptions, but the Government have adopted the opposite course, with the result that the method of examination becomes crucial to the Bill.
The Government have now decided that there shall be a Court and to endeavour to make the issue to be decided by the court justiciable, that is, expressed in terms of a general law suitable for the Court to apply to the facts. It is not, in our view, a justiciable issue. The issues involved, as the President of the Board of Trade has, in part, agreed, are economic and social issues, and that


is why the right hon. Gentleman has included lay members in the Court. If it were a purely justiciable issue as a matter of law then, obviously, the right place for it to go would be to the High Court, before a High Court judge qualified to deal with it.
In endeavouring to define the law which shall be applied by the Court—and the Court cannot apply the law unless the law is stated—the Government have inevitably allowed large difficulties of interpretation to arise and big loopholes through which anybody who wishes to do so can escape the consequences. It is a muddled proposal to try to wed what is essentially an economic decision with what is essentially a justiciable process. They simply do not marry together. The result is the great number of difficulties which throughout the Committee and Report stage of the Bill have constantly faced the Government.
There is the danger of dragging judges into political and economic issues. There is the difficulty about obtaining suitable lay members of the Court, and this is a crucial matter in the working out of the Bill. The effectiveness of the Court will depend to a very great extent upon the calibre of lay members obtained for the work. It remains to be seen what will happen, but I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will bear most strongly in mind the prolonged examination given in Committee and on Report to the need for lay members of a calibre comparable with that of a High Court judge with whom laymen will sit as fellow-members in the Restrictive Practices Court.
We on this side of the House would have preferred a Governmental method of dealing with the matter, with extension of the employment of the Monopolies Commission. I would agree most strongly in commending, if I may with deference, the excellent work which has been done by the Commission. As the right hon Gentleman said, it is only the Commission's work that has made the Bill possible. I should like particularly to have seen the Commission work as a body reviewing the effect on the economy of the country of judicial decisions.
There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that there shall be an individual

review, with reports available to the Government and to the House for examination. That would involve no clash and no overlapping between the Commission and the Court. It would simply mean that the Court would arrive at its decisions, and, in the same way as we have Royal Commissions on marriage and other subjects, we should have sitting a Commission on restrictive practices which could review the effects on our economy of the Court's decisions. There would be no question of interfering with or in any way impinging upon the decisions of the Restrictive Practices Court.
We on this side endeavoured to have two main Amendments accepted on the subject of resale price maintenance, to deal with what appear to us to be the two main difficulties in the restrictive practices provisions of the Bill. The first is that there is no check at all upon prices or upon the reasonableness of the conditions imposed in cases of individual resale price maintenance. The other point is one of important principle and of very important practical effect.
This matter was deal with in a very able speech in Committee, when one of my hon. Friends referred to the principle laid down in the Lloyd Jacob Report, which said:
Producers are not in our opinion entitled to use resale price maintenance to obstruct the development of particular methods of trading.
I am sure that we all agree with that very healthy principle.
The position is that some traders do not pay the surplus profits of their trading on capital to shareholders but pay it, instead, to purchasers in proportion to their purchases, a most admirable method of trading which one would have thought would have commended itself to the sympathetic consideration of the Government as tending to reduce prices and to help those sections of the community which most need it. There is no legitimate cause of complaint against this method of trading.
The Lloyd Jacob Committee said:
… we do not consider that a bona fide exercise of this freedom"—
that is, the freedom to pay dividends to consumers instead of to shareholders—
can imperil the trade or good-will of any manufacturer.
No ill results to a manufacturer from that method of trading according to the


considered opinion of the Lloyd Jacob Committee. Nevertheless, the Government have made this discrimination despite the Lloyd Jacob Report and have enabled manufacturers to enforce individual resale price maintenance in the courts against traders who trade by this method, including the great co-operative societies of the country, a number of individual traders and agricultural cooperatives and other organisations of that kind.
In our view, this is a really vicious provision. The danger is that manufacturers will take advantage of the rights of going to the courts to extend the discrimination which they may practise. The Labour Party has always made it clear that it is against discrimination. If, therefore, manufacturers use this Bill to extend discrimination against co-operative societies, and against other traders who give trade rebates to their customers, a Labour Government will take steps to put an end to those discriminatory practices.

Mr. William Shepherd: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the effect of what is now being done will be in the contrary direction? As soon as one manufacturer takes it into his mind to supply a co-operative society with a given class of goods, other manufacturers will be very much inclined, because of the competitive nature of trade and the fact that they will no longer be bound collectively, to follow suit, which must ease the position of the co-operative society in the course of time.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What is pernicious about this Bill is that it has given the Court the right to enforce individual resale price maintenance and discriminatory practices, expressly including dividends and discriminations of this kind against co-operative societies. What I have said about manufacturers who extend this discrimination against cooperative societies and against other traders who give trade rebates to their customers is that a Labour Government would take steps to end this practice.
Taking the Bill as a whole, we agree with its object, but we are extremely critical and sceptical about the method adopted in it. We are anxious that the Bill should succeed. We want to do

everything possible not only to give it a chance, but to help it to succeed. If this method which the Government have adopted is not effective, quite clearly other methods which are effective will have to be adopted, but, in the meantime, we wish to give the Bill a chance. We are in favour of its object, and for this reason we shall agree to the Third Reading.

8.31 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has described the Bill as an ineffective muddle. The duty of an Opposition is to oppose, and, therefore, if he really thought that the Bill was an ineffective muddle, it would be his duty to recommend his colleagues to vote against it, but he did not do so. I think that is very significant.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for his advice to the Opposition as to what they should do, but I think I have made it clear. though apparently not to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that whereas we were agreed about the object of the Bill, we disagree about the method adopted. It was in reference to that that I said that the Bill was a muddle, and I explained carefully that, because we agreed with the object of the Bill, we were not opposing the Third Reading.

Sir L. Heald: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has made it plain, of course, that the reason why he had to say these things in his speech was because this Bill represents the very definite carrying out of a specific pledge that was given before and during the last Election. Something very remarkable has been achieved. I can quite understand that, for purely political purposes, the hon. and learned Gentleman had to say what he did. Fortunately, we can leave him to his Socialist politics, and go on to deal with something more important.
This is a very difficult and extremely complicated Bill, which has occupied the attention of the House, I think I am right in saying, for nearly seventy hours. It is a very difficult job that has been done, and I feel that everyone in the House will agree with me on this, at any rate. Certainly in the short time that I have


been in the House, there has never been a Bill concerning which the Ministers responsible for it have been more certain of what they were doing, how to do it, and more thoroughly in charge and on top of their job. I think that that is something about which we all ought to be pleased and proud, no matter on which side of the House we sit.
I think it is also interesting to remember some of the things that were said when consideration of this Bill started. For example, there was an article in the Economist, and I almost wondered when I read it whether that journal had not changed places with Punch for the time, so that the more serious political arguments appeared in Punch and the more humorous ones in the Economist. It was suggested that the President of the Board of Trade was to be defended by a band of stalwarts, as they were described, and notably by the hon. and learned Gentleman and others, who were to defend the President of the Board of Trade against the representatives of the trade associations, who were to produce a series of wrecking Amendments designed to destroy the Bill. I had the honour of being named personally by the Economist as being the leading representative of the trade associations.
If one had taken that seriously, one might have regarded it as a rather insulting remark, because I should have thought that, having regard to what I have done in the past in this House and the way in which I have conducted myself here, I would not be regarded as the hired representative of anybody. It was obvious that those responsible for those comments had no understanding of what was happening.
The fact is that the Conservative Party was undertaking what amounted to a serious interference with private enterprise and private industry. We thought, and I believe we were right in thinking —I feel that all our supporters and the country generally would agree—that it was our business in those circumstances to see that the procedure was as fair as possible, that the machinery was as fair and efficient as possible, in order to ensure that no injustice was done. That is what we did.
I am not ashamed to say that I consulted those in responsible positions in

various branches of industry and also professional associations. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to inform themselves on these matters, and I certainly have nothing to regret about that. As a result we put down a number of Amendments, and I hope that we have achieved some results in helping to improve the Bill.
First there was the position of the Registrar and his relationship to the Court, and the way in which he should be controlled. In the end, after some vicissitudes, we obtained a considerable improvement in that respect. We felt that Clause 16 was not satisfactory as it stood originally. That was especially so where it required the industry concerned, or the parties concerned, not only to prove certain specific things but also, over and above that, to prove as a negative that their practices had not operated, and were not calculated to operate, to the detriment of the public. We felt that that would be an impossible thing to prove as a matter of evidence and, indeed, that view was accepted by my right hon. Friend. In the end we obtained a provision which no doubt will be difficult to work, but which at any rate will deal with the matter in a fair way.
Then there were various other matters, very technical—no doubt very tiring for those who had to be about in the House and who were not very interested in the subject—dealing with trade marks, know-how, patents and all sorts of other things. Yet they were important. They were dealt with. My right hon. Friend paid attention to the trade associations, and not only to them but also to professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, highly skilled and professional people, who saw him about these things, and my right hon. Friend met them in respect of a number of points.
If I may speak with great humility, having had the personal experience of being responsible for one or two extremely complicated Bills in this House, I should have thought that this Bill was about as difficult a Measure as any that has had to be tackled, and that, considering everything, it has emerged greatly improved. At the beginning The Times said that this was a precarious Bill anyhow, and hoped that it might survive the Committee stage in a form which would


enable it to be useful and effective. I believe that that is the case.
A great deal has been said about the novel nature of the tribunal. I do not think there is anything very startling about it. I think that any High Court judge charged with the duty of interpreting this Measure will be pleased to have with him two experienced men who can speak with knowledge and authority from a practical point of view. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to get the right people to sit on the tribunal. There I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East.
There are difficulties in that respect. and there are also difficulties in many others; for example, the handling of the question of when various different types of case will be brought up, and in what order they will be brought forward, will be a difficult task. There again, I think that we shall all agree that the selection of the Registrar will be important and difficult, and will no doubt receive very careful consideration.
We are bound to find difficulties; we are bound to find complications; but we all have to agree, however much we may have our individual views about what is not perfect in the Bill, that if we really believe in the principle of the Bill, we must not make too much of the difficulties, but extend to it our best wishes.
To the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary we must give our thanks and congratulations for the work which they have done in piloting the Bill through the House.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Holt: I was really charmed by the opening remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). We now have it on record in HANSARD that it is a remarkable achievement when one can rely on the promise of the Conservative Party. In the very charitable state of affairs in which we have now arrived, I am also ready to accept the gloss put on the attitude of some Conservative back benchers to the proposals of the Government.
I and some other hon. Members have never considered the right hon. and learned Member in the light in which the Economist regarded him, but certainly

some of his right hon. and hon. Friends were regarded with some suspicion by many of us, and possibly the reference in the Economist was to people rather nearer the Floor than he is at the moment. However that may be, it has been one of the interesting things about the Bill that the predicted opposition in the House and in the country has not materialised.
I hope that from that the Government will draw a moral, because there are one or two other matters which face the Government and which have been put off for year after year by this and the previous party in power, because it was thought that if the measures really required to correct a particular fault in the country were taken, there would be a great deal of trouble and opposition. The Government should take courage in dealing with one or two other matters which are outstanding and which have been outstanding for a long time when they see what little real opposition they have had to face in what they consider to be a rather revolutionary undertaking.
Kind words have already been said about the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot remember whether the Parliamentary Secretary was included. If he was not, I should certainly like to include him. If I remember rightly, he came into the action, as it were, at rather short notice, and from what I have heard of him he has had as clear and competent a grasp of the Bill as the President of the Board of Trade has had. I should like to be allowed to pay some tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) who has done so much in the consideration of the Bill and who is unable to be here today, because he is in Germany with a Parliamentary delegation.
Having completed my compliments, I should like to say one or two things about the Bill. We thought that there were many loopholes—my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West went on record as saying that there were at least twenty—when we first saw the Bill, and we are still disappointed with it. It is not what we should have liked. When we recognise that the Bill has not been weakened as it was thought it might be, when we realise that the President has stuck to his guns and got the Bill he wanted, we are grateful for small mercies


in that respect. The Bill is undoubtedly better than the one originally presented.
I think that we have still to remain critical, and we shall remain critical. In ordinary language, we should keep our fingers crossed and hope that the expectations of the President of the Board of Trade are justified. I will not embarrass him in his absence by accusing him of being a Liberal; that would be unwarranted flattery and exaggeration. But he has, I think, some fairly firm views on the undesirability of many of these practices, and I think that he quite genuinely wishes to see them removed—and in that we support him.
We feel that the measures which he has taken in the Bill will not allow him to remove all the practices which we should like to see removed, nor will they be removed as quickly as we would have liked. We should, for instance, have liked to see total prohibition of price rings from the beginning. I think that that would have cleared the atmosphere and allowed the Court to consider a number of other practices which are probably just as undesirable, but which are a little more complicated.
Although we welcome the banning of collective enforcement, we have great doubt about the desirability of making resale price maintenance enforceable in the Courts. That is a matter about which we shall remain critical, and we shall undoubtedly have a good deal to say if the result is in fact to restrict competition and prevent that development in distribution in the retail trade which is so urgently required in this country; and that applies to other kindred matters.
The less said about Clause 16 now, the better. It seems it would have been better had the whole Clause been left out. There are so many loopholes that one can really only say, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said earlier, that in respect of Clause 16 the vital matter is who we have constituting the Court. If, in fact, we have as members of the Court some people who have signed some of the minority Reports we have had from the Monopolies Commission, the whole purpose of the Bill will be undermined. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said some time ago, perhaps not in this House, that possibly one of the best kind of appointments

which the President could make would be, so far as the judges are concerned, those of the real old crusty type, highly suspicious of every activity of man, who, when anyone was brought before the Court, would look upon him with grave suspicion, feeling that everything he did must be against the public interest.
If we had such judges in the chair, as it were—not the big businessmen whom some people seem to approve of so much in this respect, but rather some of the theoretical economists to whom one or two hon. Members opposite have taken great objection in the course of our consideration of the Bill—it seems to me that they would arrive at their decision on some sound logical basis and not merely because they were used to carrying out these practices in their own businesses and, therefore, think that they are a good thing.
I hope that this Bill will fulfil at least the desires of the President of the Board of Trade, although we cannot say that they will fulfil ours. This Bill is certainly better than having no Bill at all. The results will not be as quick as we should like, but we wish the Bill luck. We hope that it will in fact really be the beginning of a change in the climate in British industry away from those restrictive methods which came chiefly because of the difficulties of the 'thirties, when people quite naturally looked round for some way in which to protect their own particular businesses from the difficulties of the time, without in logic really knowing what they did, but with just a natural human instinct to save something from the wreckage. We hope, although we can never be certain, that we have left those days behind. In this new climate what we want is healthy, go-ahead, competitive trade. While remaining critical, we hope that the Bill will do something towards that, and therefore we support it on Third Reading.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. R. Harris: It is a matter of deep regret to me that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) did not include me among the recipients of the congratulations that he was handing out so freely. As one of the hired assassins of the trade associations to which he made such kind reference, I really feel that I was entitled to some congratulation from the member of the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS


"Hear, hear."] I am much obliged to the hon. Members of the Labour Party for supporting me.
For myself, I should like to add my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have handled the Bill. I must say that I think that they have been quite brilliant at times. I think that the official Labour Opposition, also, are entitled to a good deal of thanks for the way they have approached this very novel Bill which. on the whole, I think they have treated with great kindness and consideration Per contra, I think that I, too, have treated it with some consideration, having regard to the effect which it is having on the association of which I am secretary.
The President of the Board of Trade has been lucky. He has been rather like the piano which has appeared so often in cartoons and jokes over the centuries. The cartoons show a large piano being moved by two very large gentlemen, one at each end, one saying, "To you" and the other saying "From me", both pushing as hard as they can, and the piano standing absolutely still in the middle. That is rather what has happened here.
It is a great achievement of the President of the Board of Trade to have introduced a Bill with such novel provisions and got it through without any real major change in any respect. There has been a change of wording here and there arid a change in the frills, but by and large it has gone through almost as originally proposed.
It is, I believe, a good idea to register agreements. I am all for registering agreements, and I do not mind them coming out into the open. I think the more so the better. I want the public to feel satisfied that these things are not against the public interest if indeed they are not. I have always favoured that. It is a better thing to do than automatically to ban all agreements which, of course, is what the Labour Party wanted.

Mr. Holt: And the Liberal Party, also.

Mr. Harris: I hope that the Court which is being set up will enjoy the confidence of trade and industry to a greater extent that the Monopolies Commission has done. I do not want to blame the

Monopolies Commission. It has had to labour under quite impossible conditions. It is most difficult to appear to be impartial when one has not only got to pronounce a decision but also to collect the evidence. It is a very difficult thing to do, to collect the evidence, present it and then make a decision on it. Somebody is bound to think that one has not been fair.
Under the Court procedure which we have now adopted, it will be much more like the ordinary procedure of the High Court, and I think that it will tend to have the confidence of the people who are affected very much more than the Monopolies Commission has done. I do not quite understand or follow all the arguments of the hon. Member for Bolton, West. I cannot see why the Monopolies Commission, in its present or future form, or in the form that it would have taken had the Opposition Amendment been carried, should be in any better position to pronounce upon the matters which come before it than the new Court will be.
After all, it is a well-known fact that the Government have had great difficulty in finding suitable people to sit on the Monopolies Commission. They may have great difficulty in finding suitable people to sit on the Restrictive Practices Court. It is a difficult thing to find anybody completely and absolutely impartial who has had nothing to do with any of these matters in his life —except, possibly, economists, who have never produced anything.
I should like to say a word on behalf of the businessmen who have been run down so much. If a man has spent many years of his life in trade or industry, and produced something which has improved the standard of living, we cannot just dismiss him as a fool and say that everything he says or does is nonsense or hopelessly biassed. If we had to choose —though, of course, we do not have that choice—between getting rid of the economists or the businessmen, I know which I should choose; I should get rid of the economists, because they have never contributed anything to help bring down prices.

Mr. Holt: In case the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were addressed to me, may I, as a part-time businessman,


say that I should not like it thought that I consider businessmen fools, but merely that they may be a little prejudiced.

Mr. Harris: Yes, but I think that the economists may also be slightly prejudiced. Possibly they suffer from a sense of frustration from never having produced anything very positive in their lives. The hon. Member is a part-time businessman, as he has said, but I hope that he is not a part-time economist as well.
I do not wish to say too much about Clause 16. I am one of those who think that under the provisions of the Clause almost every agreement which is brought before the Court will probably be banned. Hon. Members opposite think, on the other hand, that almost every agreement will get through. I do not like a principle under which someone goes before a division of the High Court and is, so to speak, guilty before he opens his mouth. We shall have to wait and see how this works out.
Clause 19 bans immediately all collective enforcement resale price maintenance. I am bound to say, once again, that I think all the matters dealt with in this Clause should have been made registrable under Part I of the Bill and justifiable before the Court. I have made all these points before, and I do not wish to elaborate them again. Many members of the public cherish the illusion that, as a result of the Bill, we shall have no more private courts, fines, stop lists, snoopers, and the rest of it. But, of course, they will still continue. They may continue under the provisions of Part I of the Bill, because that will be the only way it will be possible to enforce agreements approved by the Court.
It is true that the whole matter will probably have to be approved by the Court, but it is inconceivable that, having approved the principle of a restrictive agreement, the Court will provide no method of enforcing it. If the agreement is given, presumably the Court must give some means of enforcing it. So far as I can see, the only way of doing that will be by the continuance of these private courts, some of which are not so evil as some hon. Members have tried to make out, and in many cases every endeavour has been made to make them fair. My only regret is that we shall not see the

Potato Marketing Board appearing before the Court in order to try to justify itself.
Earlier today I said something about Clause 19, when the Amendment which I moved was not seconded, because the seconder, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), is on a delegation to Germany and was not able to be present. But I hope that at a later stage the President will see fit to accede to my request to defer the coming into operation of Clause 19. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but I think that it would be helpful to trade and industry if this Clause could be made enforceable in three or four months' time, instead of a month after the passing of the Bill, which is the provision applying to the rest of this Measure.
Clause 20, which provides for individual price maintenance is, of course, the "great unknown." We do not know how that will work out and no one is able to say. In some industries its provisions may prove efficient, in many others they may prove to be practically worthless.
I sincerely hope that the provisions of Clauses 19 and 20, and, indeed, of the whole Bill, will serve to bring down prices. If they do that, the Bill will be well justified. But I am bound also to express my fear that prices may perhaps be kept up by the Bill. One cannot deny that this Measure will introduce an air of uncertainty into trade and industry, and there is nothing worse than uncertainty for making industrialists go slow about bringing down prices. It would be a great tragedy if the Bill introduced such an atmosphere of uncertainty, and caused industrialists to feel that the Government and judges were looking over their shoulders all the time. If that stage were reached, industrialists might feel that it was not safe to reduce prices, because they did not know what cuts might be made, and all the rest of it.
However, I do hope that we shall see prices coming down more successfully than we have seen as a result of the activities of the Monopolies Commission. I have made many inquiries with a view to finding whether any reports and strictures made by the Commission have had the effect of reducing prices to the public. I know that there are other things involved besides reducing prices, but I


have not seen any evidence of that coming about as yet. Perhaps it will take years for these things to work out. If so, I hope that this Bill will produce quicker results than the Monopolies Commission has done.
Once again, I wish to congratulate the President and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way in which they have got this Bill through, and I wish it every success.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. G. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) gave us an insight into the way he sees the Bill will work. It would be out of order to question him about that with a view to finding out how representatives of trade associations really view the Bill. Incidentally, I am surprised that he should attack academic economists because, leaving the hon. Member out of account, the most successful secretaries of trade associations are, in fact, academic economists.

Mr. R. Harris: I appreciate all that and I believe that economists can do a very useful job advising business men, but I do not like them pronouncing on businessmen's activities.

Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Member that Clause 20 is a shot in the dark. We do not know where we are going, or how it will work out. We may have to amend the Bill as the result of experience, particularly of what happens under Clause 20. We certainly could not begin to amend it now to make it a better Bill and to deal with the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the position of co-operative societies, trade rebates, and so on.
When he was in the Chamber a moment ago, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) asked a question about that matter. His question illustrated the confusion which exists on that issue. He thought, as the Parliamentary Secretary thought when he replied to the point in Committee, that because Clause 19 will get rid of collective discrimination, the position of co-operative societies will be improved and, therefore, we ought not to complain about the fact that in Clause 20 the Bill gives legal protection to individual resale price maintenance.
The discrimination practised against co-operative societies at present is very largely by individual resale price maintenance. It is not collective in the sense that a manufacturer of gramophone records, a manufacturer of tools or other things, himself imposes the discriminatory conditions about giving rebates about which we have been complaining. In that sense, Clause 19 is no help to us at all. I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend has said that with a change of Government those discriminatory practices, if they continue, will be dealt with by a Labour Government and will be ended. We are not asking for favours; we want the position of the co-operative societies to be precisely the same as that of everybody else in the trading community.
When dealing with this matter the President of the Board of Trade said that in the Bill he was legislating neither for nor against co-operative societies. That is not quite true. The Bill legislates against restrictive practices, but we leave out from the purview of the Bill one feature of restrictive practices; and the type of practice which is omitted is one to which co-operative societies, in particular, object. By leaving it out of the purview of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is legislating against co-operative societies. The restrictive practice to which we refer should have been incorporated in the Bill.
In support of the line which the right hon. Gentleman took, we had a statement from the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) on the narrow legal point. We argued that the effect of Cluase 20 was to say to a manufacturer, "You can discriminate against co-operative societies on the ground that they distribute their profits to their customers instead of to their shareholders"; and the hon. and learned Member replied that that is not the correct position under the taxation laws because the dividends distributed by co-operative societies are trade rebates and not a distribution of profits.
In fact, that is a legal fiiction to which co-operative societies have agreed over the years in order that the Income Tax provisions may work satisfactorily. We do not accept that situation in theory, although we accept it in practice. The


alternative to accepting this legal fiction —the alternative which would give co-operative societies the same treatment as joint stock companies—would mean that in our Income Tax legislation we should have a separate section dealing only with co-operative societies.
So that that situation should not arise, the agricultural, industrial, co-partner-ship and other co-operative societies have accepted this legal fiction that a distribution of profits as applied to cooperative societies is the same as a distribution of trade rebates by a joint stock company. In fact, the distributions in form, in principle and everything else are quite different, and it is wrong to use that very narrow legal argument, based on a legal fiction to which we have agreed in order that the administration of taxation business should be easy, against us in this connection.
Co-operative societies and other traders —and we want to encourage more of them—who distribute their profits to their customers instead of to their shareholders are being discriminated against in the Bill. The Bill goes to the very principle of this form of trading which we have tried to build up in this country and to present to other countries as a model to follow. The Bill discriminates against this form of trading, and that is wrong and unfair.
I hope that the Bill will succeed in doing all the things which the President and the Parliamentary Secretary want it to do. I hope that it will put an end to restrictive practices which are injurious to the trade of this country. But, of course, it is not comprehensive, as we have pointed out. I hope that its weaknesses, faults and unfairnesses will eventually be put right.
Who is to put them right, I think, will be decided by the electors. There are 11 million members of co-operative societies, not all of whom are seized by the importance of what we think is important here. Many of them are opposed to the sort of political action which we take in the Co-operative movement. They think that the Co-operative movement should trust any kind of Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is now going beyond a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These are my last words, and I think that if I alter them a little I shall not be out of order.
There are many people who think that the Government are being fair and can be trusted to be fair in these matters. Well, they can see what has happened here. We think that the Bill is unfair to co-operative enterprise. We shall go on saying to the public and to our members that it is unfair. We know, I think with some certainty, what the result will be when the electors have to judge these and other matters connected with the Bill.

9.10 p.m.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) should have concluded upon such a note. As a member of at least two co-operative societies, I certainly do not think that the Bill is discriminatory against such societies, nor do I think that it will have such an effect as will influence electors. This is not a political but a purely industrial Measure, by which we are seeking to achieve what we always told the electors we would achieve, namely, a considerable freeing of our trade and industry.
The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the state of mental confusion in which various people have found themselves. Again, I think that the early apprehensions which were felt have been very considerably dispelled. I share with him the recollection that many different aspects of society—industrial, business and all those covered by the suppliers of goods—were exceedingly apprehensive as to what the Bill might result in. I believe that those apprehensions have been very greatly allayed during the course of the passage of this Bill. Certainly, we now all know very considerably more about its content and its intent and how it will work than we did in the earlier stages of our deliberations.
I have said that it was part of our original intention as a party and as a Government to endeavour to free trade. The Bill is a step which has been taken towards that end and object. I share the view expressed, with some doubt and hesitation, by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) that it is also calculated to help us towards achieving another of our objects, which is to reduce prices. I


think that it will do so in a way entirely different from that which he suggested, although the normal freeing of the channels of trade is calculated to increase production and to reduce prices.
The other way in which it will operate to that end is that it will, throughout a considerable section of trade and industry, release a considerable number of people who are at present employed on the entirely unproductive work involved in the administration of these restrictive practices. If that saving in the cost of production is passed to the consuming public, I hope that it will lead to a reduction in prices.
Turning to Part I of the Bill, I believe that it can be nothing but an advantage to bring into the open these agreements which have been entered into. As the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, reminded us, many of these agreements were started, or were thought of in the times of the depression in the 'thirties. As I myself indicated in the Second Reading debate, I think that the majority of them were started with the best of intentions and without any ulterior motives except to try to foster and improve the standards of business and the maintenance of business at that time.
There is no doubt that during the course of time, and in the natural empirical growth of condition after condition in the changing circumstances of our economic life, conditions have crept in which, in a number of cases, are contrary to the public interest. It is as well that they should be reviewed, and reviewed by an impartial, judicial tribunal, in which I have not the slightest doubt the public will have confidence.
Industry and trade generally throughout the country will also have confidence that they will be dealt with fairly, openly and honestly in order that an impartial and judicial judgment may be given as to whether or not the practices which have grown up are contrary to the public interest. I am equally sure that those parties to agreements who find that, in the opinion of the Court, the practices to which they have adhered and subscribed are contrary to the public interest, will accept that ruling of the Court without hesitation, and put their own house in order.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to one aspect of Clause 16 about which I was exceedingly apprehensive, namely, the necessity for a party to an agreement to establish a negative, as was originally provided in the Bill. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend upon finding a solution to that problem. I know that they did not enjoy the idea of putting upon a party the onus of proof involving the proving of a negative—an exceedingly difficult thing to do.
To resolve that problem was exceedingly difficult. We have all had a shot at it; suggestions came from different sides of the House, and practically all our suggestions were open to considerable criticism on one ground or another. I believe that the Government have found in this basis of a balance, a solution which does not do away with the necessity of parties establishing the rectitude of their own agreements, but which at the same time, avoids the necessity of their having to prove what might have been completely impossible, that is, a negative.
I do not think I ever had any real doubt, but whatever shadow of doubt might have crossed my mind at the beginning concerning the wisdom of the tribunal being a judicial court resolved during the debates in these proceedings. I am quite sure that that is the right solution. It is a remarkably courageous decision to take, since it involves an entirely new departure and gets away from the habit into which we were falling, not only as a Government but as a nation, in seeking to resolve these problems with administrative organisations and tribunals of one sort or another, before which the parties never really seem to know where they stand. Good though the work of many of them is, they are not the same thing as a judicial court, and they do not enjoy the same confidence among the public at large.
It is not my intention to refer to the latter parts of the Bill, particularly the Clauses dealing with collective enforcement; but I do not share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth that we shall see private courts approved and sanctioned by the Restrictive Practices Court. I cannot foresee the possibility of such an occurrence, and I believe that, in so far as it may be necessary, they will find their


own solution within the limits of the Bill, and without further trespassing upon the public conscience.
It remains only for me to tender to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary my personal congratulations. Having been in a position somewhat similar to his, I know full well the strain, the work, and the effort involved in the situation which he holds, in dealing with a complicated and difficult Measure of this kind. I tender him my sincere congratulations and also to my right hon. Friend the President, for both are Ministers in charge of the Bill and have an unexampled grasp of the detail, not only of the Bill, but of its consequences.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: The House will agree that the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) has played a prominent part in our deliberations on the Bill and has brought great experience and knowledge to bear on it. The hon. Member will not misunderstand me when I say that we have sometimes wondered whether our fears should not increase as fears on some of the benches opposite were allayed. But we share the same objective and I am sure we shall be equally glad if the Bill produces the reduction in prices for which the hon. Member fervently hoped. I hope, later, to give some reasons why I think the result may not be quite as favourable as the hon. Member thought
I should like to add my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Parliamentary Secretary on the great competence they have shown in handling the Bill through all its stages in the House and also to thank them for the courtesy they have shown in meeting the arguments which we on this side have advanced in our endeavours to try to improve the Bill.
I have taken a close interest in the Bill, both from the standpoint of an economist, which I used to be before I came into the House, and from that of a barrister, an occupation I now seek to pursue. I am bound to say that I find the Bill much more satisfactory when judged from the latter capacity than from the former. As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) in speaking first from these benches on Third

Reading, the Bill has been improved in detail but its basic structure remains unchanged.
We have argued that its basic structure is wrong, because economic and political issues are, in our judgment, not strictly justiciable within the necessarily wide statutory limits which any Act of Parliament must lay down. We believe that the real test—the test of public interest—on which the whole of this legislation will stand or fall, is one to which an economic test has to be applied, and it can well be said that these arguments would be better put by economists or, perhaps, by businessmen than by lawyers. There may be a certain duplication as economists and others may be employed to help prepare the briefs on which cases are argued by the barristers concerned.
We do not accept the view that the President and, earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary expressed about the comprehensive and all-embracing nature of the three Parts of the Bill taken together. We believe that a number of loopholes still exist. I do not want to detain the House by going through a number of suggestions which have previously been raised, but I should like to draw attention simply to one to substantiate my proposition.
I believe that there still exists a loophole in the fact that partnership agreements, for example, are exempted from registration. It seems to me that if four people agree to form a partnership in the usual form and provide; n the usual form for dividing the country into, say, four areas, between them after the partnership comes to an end they will be bound to that restriction for five years or so after it comes to an end. But within a couple of days they can dissolve the partnership and have an agreement which will be enforceable in the courts but which will not be registrable under the Act. This is just one example of loopholes which might well be found.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety about the interpretation of the Bill, some of the provisions of which are very complicated. We hope that the Government will yet consider that matter. I do not underestimate the difficulty of clarification, and I do not want to be unduly critical, for I know it is a very difficult job, but I ask the Government to give further consideration to it, so that another place, in its


legislative capacity, may save itself work in its judicial capacity. I believe that if that is not done a great number of questions of interpretation will be referred to another place through the courts on appeal. That will further delay the getting on with the job which, I am sure, we all want to see undertaken as soon as possible.
I do not want to go over again the difficulties we still envisage about the status of the appointed members. We have brought up this matter a number of times, and as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East have said, we must have appointed members of the very highest calibre. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is concern about the kind of person who should be appointed, in particular to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Courts. I would ask that great attention be given to this matter, because I think the Parliamentary Secretary is far too intelligent and has far too high a respect for the courts to be convinced by his own arguments upon it.
I regret that the secretaries of companies cannot have audience of these Courts. A much greater feeling of satisfaction could have been given, and much expense could have been saved, if the secretaries who, no doubt, will be present in any case, could, on occasion, have spoken on behalf of their companies. It seems ridiculous that if there are 30 or 40 parties to an agreement, and they all want to be represented before the Court, 30 or 40 barristers may have to be retained to represent those different interests. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) is saying that I am speaking against my own personal interests in this matter in speaking as I am. That may be, but I still think that the Government would have been wise to have given more consideration to the question of audience than they have.
I do not think that Part II of the Bill will be nearly as effective as the Government feel it will in stopping restrictive practices or in reducing prices. I am prepared to predict that trade associations and manufacturers, despite Clauses 19 and 20, will be able to run matters very much as they are. If that should be

the case, the public will be very grievously disappointed. Insufficient protection is given by the Bill against the danger of loss-leaders, which may disrupt certain sections of the retail trade.
I shall not go further over the arguments about the position of co-operative societies. They were very forcibly and cogently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, but I certainly do believe that the omission of special recognition of the deferred discount traders is a great fault in the Bill.
I have tried before, but unsuccessfully, so I try again now to persuade the Government that the provisions of Clause 19 about interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are quite different, even though the same words are used, from those in Clause 6. I believe that there is a case for their inclusion in Clause 6, but I cannot see why an interconnected body corporate should enjoy the privilege of continuing collective resale price maintenance, collective boycotts and the rest when their competitors will, rightly, be denied that opportunity.
Unilevers, for example, have a system of companies selling a wide range of products such as soap, detergents, fish, ice-cream, margarine and sausages. Why should Unilever's be in a position to stop all their supplies of goods to a trader because he had sold sausages below the fixed price, wheras other traders have to go through the provisions of Clause 20 to 'enforce their prices? The same will probably apply to the tobacco trade.
The answer may well be that this will be a matter for Part III of the Bill and will be caught by the Monopolies Commission but, as I understand, reference to the Commission applies only if the firm concerned sells a third of the goods of a single description. It seems to me that the possible outcome of the provisions of the Bill may well be an extension of interconnected bodies corporate, where we have a grouping of a large number of firms selling goods of a very wide variety so that in no case will they come within Section 3 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to find it amusing, but I suggest that it is a point justifying consideration.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I was not seeking to register amusement but only, at this late hour, intelligent receptivity of what the hon. Member was saying.

Mr. Mulley: I am sorry that I have not sufficient knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reactions to distinguish the one from the other. It may be that we shall become better acquainted.
It seems to me that there is a danger of an increase in the number of these interconnected bodies corporate and of an intensification of trusts in our economy which, I am sure, will be regretted on both sides of the House. Experience has been that when one tries to stop one form of restrictive practice, certain parts of industry, naturally enough, seek to find another way of avoiding a break-up of their restrictive agreements. The experience of the European Coal and Steel Community in recent years, in its attack on cartels, has shown a marked increase in the development of what we call interconnected bodies corporate, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider the point.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will help me when he replies to the debate, but I cannot find a single example where a partnership could have an agreement within itself for collective resale price maintenance, that is, the ordinary genuine partnership of the kind which, I understand, it is sought to exclude by means of Clause 6. It seems to me extremely odd. I should think that that might provide a loophole without giving any practical advantage at all. Indeed, the whole of Part II of the Bill favours the large retailer or manufacturer against the smaller, and that is a tendency which I am bound to regret.
The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) has just returned to the Chamber and I should like to make good an omission when the hon. Member was not congratulated upon his part in our discussions and also confess that I used to be an academic economist. I am sure that that shocks the hon. Member profoundly, because judging from his earlier remarks he is one of the few left of those who define economists as people who cannot earn a living themselves and spend their time discovering how other people do it. I am sure that, when he is serious, he does not hold that view.
The emphasis of the second part of the Bill is in favour of the large against the small, and, in particular, in the trade association field. Practical experience surely shows that manufacturers will not

take action against large distributors or large retailers. We cannot imagine small manufacturers taking either Selfridges or Harrods to the courts. We cannot imagine a motor manufacturer taking his principal London agent or distributor to the courts, and it is that tendency in the Bill which I think should be regretted and commented upon.
By far the most unsatisfactory provision in the Bill, as we see it, is in Part III. We believe that the Monopolies Commission should play a bigger rather than a smaller part in the campaign that both sides of the House want to wage against restrictive practices in industry. I should like to see Section 3 of the 1948 Act containing the provision that the Commission could investigate cases where 10 per cent. of goods of a particular sort were controlled by one firm, with, of course, the usual proviso that the reference would be made at the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade.
I have failed to be convinced by the arguments from the Government that the fact-finding activities of the Monopolies Commission are likely to hinder the proper and smooth functioning of the new Court. I do not want to enlarge on this particular field, because it is a large one on which to enter at this time of night, but I would say, in short, that I do not believe we can effectively deal with the restrictive practices that have been strangling the British economy and have provided a feather bed for the least efficient producers entirely by this legalistic type of approach. I believe that we can deal with them effectively only by an extension of public control, and, from that point of view, the Bill moves in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, I hope quite sincerely that the Bill will succeed. We hope that our fears may prove to be ill-founded, but I am bound to say that I have grave doubts whether the Bill will achieve, what I am sure we all on both sides of the House want to see it achieve, in the elimination of restrictive practices.
I hope that my cynical Friends behind me will not be able to say—[Laughter.] I should say my cynical Friends who have gone to get some well-earned refreshment. I hope they will not be able to say that the only part of the economy that has been supported has been the Bar, and that the only prosperity


has been that of the few barristers who enjoy the good will of the Treasury Solicitor.
I trust that the Bill will not result in a lawyer's paradise, as it has been described, but that we shall see an effective attack on restrictive practices, which we on this side of the House certainly want to see eliminated. I also hope that before the Bill becomes an Act it may become even stronger in the particular directions we have tried to indicate.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I should like to think that the improvement of this Bill since the Second Reading has been proportionate to the number of hours which we have devoted to it. I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade would deny that it is a better Bill. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has himself put down nearly a hundred Amendments to it, if not quite a hundred, and he has accepted at least fifty from other Members. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, on Second Reading, thought that the Bill was perfect then, but I imagine that he has now accepted the view of the President that it was capable of improvement. However, we regard it, though far from being a good Bill, as sufficiently improved to justify our not voting against it on the Third Reading.
If I may, I, too, want to compliment the President of the Board of Trade on his reasonable and conciliatory and courteous attitude—ever since the Second Reading, at all events—and his great patience in answering an extraordinary number of laborious questions from all parts of the House and the Committee. With our help, and that of the Liberal Party at times, when it has been here, the right hon. Gentleman has resisted a great deal of pressure from the group of hard-faced men on his extreme right who have now deserted us entirely.
My hon. and learned Friend has shown such ingeniuty throughout that I have sometimes thought it was he who was drafting the Bill and not the President. The Parliamentary Secretary has remained fluent to the end, if not quite so glib as he was at the beginning, and on one or two occasions he has fallen unaccountably silent for a time.
In all really major respects I am bound to say that I fear the Bill is very little improved. I am strengthened in the conviction, by all the debates which we have had, that the main criticisms that we made at the beginning were sound. I will summarise those points briefly now.
First, I am still convinced that the President made a profound mistake in rejecting the main proposal of the Monopolies Commission that there should be a general prohibition of the worst type of practices. He has really never given us a valid reason for doing so, and I am still inclined to believe that he was influenced by his rather queer idea that we could not have a general prohibition unless we made all the practices a criminal offence at the same time. It has always seemed to me as though it was that muddled idea which prevented him from having investigated thoroughly our proposal for having a general prohibition enforced by the injunction procedure, which would, I still think, have cut down greatly the inevitable delays and confusions which we shall now suffer.
Now that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has returned, I must just say about him that he has worn such an air of superior wisdom throughout the proceedings that we can only regret that he has so seldom given us the verbal benefit of that wisdom.

Sir L. Heald: I have been listening and learning.

Mr. Jay: At all events we have extracted from the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of the proceedings the assurance that a list of important practices which he named will, within at least a month of the passing of the Bill into law, be designated for registration. It is the intention of the Board of Trade that they will be registered within three months of the date at which the call is made, if that is the right word. Since that has always been a most important part of what the Government have said, it is a little odd that we have never had that assurance from the President himself.
I take it that when the Parliamentary Secretary gave those undertakings, he had the full authority of the President.


If he did not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us now, before we have completed the Third Reading of the Bill tonight. Those were very important undertakings, and we are extremely anxious to see that that designation and registration shall be done within one month and four months of the passing of the Bill.
Our debates have confirmed the soundness of our original criticism that the judgments to come before the Restrictive Practices Court are essentially non-justiciable issues. I fear that the truth is that the Lord Chancellor had got this idea of having a court into his head right at the beginning of the Government's deliberations, and forced it on the President, who has been determined ever since to prove, and perhaps even to believe, that these were justiciable issues. Whatever the reason, what has happened is that a large branch of economic and political policy has, as a result of the Bill, been taken out of the hands of Parliament altogether for an indefinite period. That is what has happened, and we should understand what is being done.
In addition to that, the debates have shown what was not absolutely clear at the beginning, that the Registrar who initiates the whole proceeding is not to have any effective responsibility to Parliament or to Ministers. That carries the abnegation of Parliamentary and Ministerial responsibility over the whole business even further. I can see no reason for the President having taken the Registrar so far out of the sphere of Parliamentary control unless he or his advisers did not want to be bothered and troubled with answering Questions about this matter. If that is an unworthy suspicion, perhaps we shall be given some other sufficient reason.
Our original criticism of Clause 19, which purports to ban resale price maintenance, to the effect that it really banned only one method of collective enforcement and not the others, has been entirely vindicated by the President's action in amending that part of the Bill, quite rightly, in a material way, in order to embrace other forms of collective enforcement and to put them out of court. We are still not satisfied that the ban is complete.
For instance, so far as I have been able to follow the discussion, it appears

to be still possible for a trade association to advise its members on the use of Clause 20 for the enforcement of individual resale price maintenance. I find it difficult to see how in practice that will differ from collective resale price maintenance. I saw a predatory gleam coming into the eye of the hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. R. Harris) when that point emerged, as if he saw interesting and promising fields of activity in the future.
Above all, the President has been extraordinarily obstinate and foolish in refusing to meet the very acute anxieties of my hon. Friends about the position of the Co-operative movement. Indeed, his rather unreasonable obstinacy here has been very different from his attitude on many other parts of the Bill. One cannot help feeling that he is the victim of political prejudice or political pressure, which is very unwise from his own point of view. I believe that the President honestly thinks—although we believe wrongly—that this is a good Bill, and that he wants it to survive. Of course, if he pushes it into law in this form—and the Bill still has to go through the upper House, so that it is not beyond redemption—he will make it virtually certain that we on this side of the House will be forced to pass an amending Bill removing this discrimination against the co-operative societies as soon as the present Government come to an end, as the electors of Tonbridge have shown they hope they soon will.
The point I want to make to the President is that if there is to be an amending Bill, it is highly likely that someone will say—as he knows they often say inside Government Departments—"If we are to have a Bill affecting this question, we might as well put in a few other things as well which we would like to have, but which we might otherwise have thought not worth the trouble". If he persists with this, he will be inviting major Amendments to the Bill.
One of the other points which we will have in mind as the subject of a possible Amendment in the future will be the remaining powers of the Monopolies Commission. It seems to be quite gratuitous, even from the point of view of the President's Bill, to reduce or emasculate the Commission in this way. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the Government are not to emasculate it, when they are reducing the maximum


number of members from 25 to 10 and terminating the Commission's power to sit in different groups at the same time.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was extremely weak on this point today. He said that the Commission had plenty of work to do but, on the other hand, that there was no need to allow it to consider more than one problem at the same time. Why not give it more work to do, as we suggest, and give it the chance to consider several questions at the same time, if it wishes to do so? I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary really gave any answer to that question.
Finally, our worst fears, or my worst fear is on the subject of the sort of people the President will appoint as the non-legal members of the Court. He shook our confidence badly during the Committee stage by refusing to accept an Amendment either, on the one hand, to omit the words "commerce and industry", which he will remember appears at that point in the Bill, or, alternatively, if they were included, to put in some reference to consumers' representation as well.
I must warn him that if he or the Government—I suppose it is the Lord Chancellor—appoint a majority, perhaps of ex-trade association officials or retired businessmen or reactionary lawyers—and there are such people—to this Court, then this whole experiment will fail, and, of course, if it fails, it will have been a colossal waste of time. I am bound to say, by way of parenthesis, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) shows that it is possible to be a successful lawyer without being a reactionary at the same time. Unless there is a majority—I say this in all seriousness to the President—as I think there was on the Monopolies Commission, in spite of all that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth says, of really independent members of the Court who believe that the consumers' interests should be given the benefit of the doubt, then I think that there is a danger that we shall simply have a series of decisions whitewashing the restrictive practices of industry, as in effect we have had in the courts in previous periods on restraint of trade. That is the real reason why we are legislating on this matter at all.

Mr. Philip Bell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a High Court judge would then resign, and not be a party to any of this whitewashing?

Mr. Jay: I am not aware that that happened in the last fifty years in the case of the restraint of trade, where the old state of the law fell into desuetude, to say no more.
I have been asking myself during the proceedings on this Bill whether the result of it will be better or worse than if we had not had the Bill at all and had simply allowed the old Monopolies Commission to proceed as it was doing before. I have found that question—I must confess, that I have found my views swaying one way and the other as the debates went on—exceedingly difficult to answer. I am inclined to give the final opinion at this stage that it will probably very much depend—and I say this to the President in no party spirit—on whom he appoints to this Court.
I hope that he will earnestly reflect on this matter, and set aside perhaps the natural and inevitable political pressures and prejudices which may play upon him, because if he were to appoint the sort of people whom some hon. Members opposite seemed at one stage of our debate to be recommending, I think he would make it quite certain that we should, perhaps not very long from now, have to pass an amending Bill which would radically alter the whole scheme of things which he has inserted in this Measure.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Before the Parliamentary Secretary rises to speak, may I ask a question? I understand that I may have omitted the hon. Gentleman from my congratulations to the Government representatives. If so, it was, of course, by inadvertence. It would be most churlish of me not to include the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has played a very prominent and valuable part in carrying the Bill through, and I ask him now to permit me to apologise for any omission there was, and to include him in my congratulations.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I at once express the very real appreciation of my right hon. Friend and myself of the very generous comments which have been made by the hon. and learned Member


for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and others? In the case of my right hon. Friend these tributes are very fully deserved, and in my case they are none the less welcome by reason of being much less well-deserved.
We on our part are most appreciative of the very great help and co-operation which has been given on all sides in the necessarily long and difficult conduct of these proceedings. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North says that at the time of the Second Reading I thought that the Bill was perfect. I do not think I ever quite thought that. I have, in the course of the last eleven years, played a small part, as we do, in the framing of legislation in this House and for the last twenty-five years I have played a small part in the interpretation of legislation. With that dual experience, I would certainly never consider any Act of Parliament, whether in the making or even on the Statute Book, as perfect or free from doubt. What I do think we have been able to do during the Committee and Report stages is to improve and clarify the structure of the Bill without impairing its framework.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the timetable, and I recall the rather gloomy prognostications which attended the birth of the Bill There were those who said that it would never see its way through the House of Commons at all. There were others, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was one of them, who said that if it did it would take many, many years before anything was done. I am certainly very happy to reiterate the undertaking which, as he reminded the House, I have already given during our debates.
Perhaps for clarity I should recall it. What we have undertaken to do is this: first, to call up under the first registration Order what we consider the most important forms of restrictive practices—price rings, collusive tendering and collective discrimination; and, secondly, to oblige the registration to take place within about three months from the making of the Order. I said that we would make the Order as soon as possible after the Act comes into force. The reference to one month was, as the right hon. Gentle-

man will appreciate, a reference to the provision in Clause 32 which delays the coming into operation of the Bill for one month after it has gone through Parliament. We are considering the possibility, as I think I indicated at that stage, of introducing an Amendment in another place to expedite the general coming into effect of the Bill, so as to get the registration, administration and machinery more speedily set up.
While on this point, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) who is sitting in a rather unaccustomed place in the Chamber, that we appreciate the force of the point which he made about Clause 19, and will consider the possibility of introducing at the same time an Amendment in another place with a view to giving a small extension for this purpose in regard to Clause 19.

Mr. Holt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the debates have largely converted the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in making these undertakings to the House, I spoke with the full authority of my right hon. Friend. The answer is in the affirmative. On this Bench we proceed with a general unanimity of purpose and intention which I can well understand right hon. Gentlemen opposite finding a little unfashionable. They sometimes put me in mind of the epigram of Oscar Wilde, who said of somebody,
He has no enemies, but of course his friends don't like him very much.
We have retained the general framework of this Bill in the form in which we commended it to the House on Second Reading. If, as I say, we have sought to improve its structure, we have retained the principle of judicial investigation of restrictive practices and their condemnation where they are found to be against the public interest on the basis of the criteria provided by Parliament. We believe that that system embodies the two basic constitutional principles, on which we traditionally seek to proceed in this country—the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. It is for Parliament to prescribe the principles and for the courts to apply them in particular cases. From that basic concept we have not moved, and in my view it would have been wrong for us to have done so.
It is obvious that in that context it is very important to get the general principles for the Court correctly and appropriately defined. That is why it has been appropriate that so much time has been spent on the discussion of Clauses 5 and 6, which together define the agreements which the Court will try, and Clause 16, which enunciates the basis on which the trial will take place.
As I said earlier today, it is our view that we have established a comprehensive pattern of protection against restrictive practices in the various parts of this Bill. Although the ingenuity of people may find an occasional loophole—and that is a possibility in any Act of Parliament—I do not believe that there is any single definable category of restrictive practice which is not catered for in this Measure in one way or another.
Reference has been made to the Opposition solution, or what would have been their solution, and I must say this to the House, and particularly to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The solution of hon. Gentlemen opposite, unlike ours, has not been subjected to detailed scrutiny and cross-examination by hon. Members for this long period, which I think my right hon. and learned Friend slightly under-stated, of seventy hours in this House. I am bound to say to them that if their procedure had been subjected to the same critical inquiry, I have no doubt that it would not have survived. Had we sought to proceed with their solution, I believe, we should have found that we were walking the tightrope between the danger of doing injustice on the one hand and falling into administrative chaos on the other.

Mr. Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary quoted a period of seventy hours. I would remind him that that solution is what the Royal Commission recommended after two-and-a-half years' consideration.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but the Commission was dealing only with part of this general field, and I am referring to the actual time taken in discussions in this House. I think that we are on a different point. No doubt there have been a good many hours put in on this Bill by a good many people which are not included in the seventy hours of debate in the House.
Reference has been made by the hon. and learned Member, the right hon. Member and also others, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), to the importance of the composition of the Court. We fully appreciate that there are the statutory requirements of high quality and experience demanded of the members of the Court. Their nomination is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and the House may be assured that that matter will engage his anxious and informed attention.
I have already dealt with the question of the Measure coming into operation, but I think that even though the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) is no longer present, I should shortly refer to the question of resale price maintenance and especially to the co-operative dividend, to which he referred. As the House knows, we have pursued the question of resale price maintenance on the basis of a general approach both to collective enforcement and to individual enforcement. I am bound to say that pressure for a case-by-case approach on individual resale price maintenance—seeing whether in this case it is justified and in that case should be rejected—could only generate pressure for a similar approach on collective enforcement, which, on the other hand, we have sought to outlaw entirely in this Bill.
I would remind the House that Clause 20 gives no new basic right. It only extends the power of individual resale price maintenance by assimilating the law as to purchase with notice of the condition of resale price maintenance to what it is already in the fields of patents and registered designs. We feel that too much has been made of this point and that on balance the co-operative societies should have no need to feel that manufacturers who at present supply them freely are going to change their policy merely because of the provisions of Clause 20. Undoubtedly they get the advantage—although the hon. Member for Hillsborough sought to belittle it—in common with others, that they can no longer be the victims of collective boycott or collective discrimination.
I am very glad that the Opposition is not repeating what I had to suggest on Second Reading was a grave error, and is not dividing against the Bill.

Mr. Jay: It was not perfect then.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I admit that the Bill was not perfect in the sense that one would not expect a Bill to be perfect at that stage, but I believe that this is a good Bill and as good as the collective wisdom of the House of Commons can make it. I hope that it will help to introduce added flexibility, vigour and vitality into our economic system.
Several hon. Members have made reference to the effect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) made a very proper comparison of the economic climate of today with the economic climate of the 'twenties and 'thirties, which fostered the growth of these restrictive practices. I think it is right, as we come to the end of this long road, that we should bear in mind a little sympathetically the sort of conditions which gave rise to the desire to have some sort of protection by way of those practices.
Whether or not they were rightly brought into being in those days, what is clear is that the economic conditions and climate of today are very different from what they were then. In these days there can certainly be no reason for the apprehensions that were entertained in those days and, therefore, restrictive practices today clog the mechanism of our economy, and prevent that full march forward we would all like to see.
Having said that, I wish also to say that we do not put this Bill forward as a cataclysmic event which will make an instantaneous effect on the whole of our economic and social structure. In any case, I do not think progress in this country works quite like that. What happens is that we get the main stream of progress reinforced from time to time by these tributaries, which gradually but significantly broaden the span and accelerate the flood. I believe that the Bill reinforces the general stream of our economic and social progress, and in that confident conviction, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CULKERTON STATION (CLOSING)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Last March the small station of Culkerton, which is on the branch line between Tetbury and Kemble in my constituency, was closed to passenger traffic. It remains open for freight traffic, and during the spring and autumn important quantities of agricultural produce and requirements will continue to be transported through this station, as has been the case in the past.
Culkerton Station stands amidst the very quiet countryside of the Cotswolds, and except for the railway tied cottage owned by the Transport Commission, in which lives the railway employee who, for the past 18 years, has looked after the station, there is hardly a house in sight; and the casual visitor to the station might well be excused for thinking that this is a station of little transport consequence.
In fact, he would be wrong, because not very far away, hidden by the hills of the Cotswolds and by the woods and copses of the neighbourhood, there stands a fairly extensive rural community. The villages of Culkerton and Ashley and various hamlets such as Trull and Hazleton, and the village of Cherrington a little further away, all have used this station for their railway requirements. This rural community is not extremely large, but, of course, it is essential to the agricultural industry in which everybody in that neighbourhood is engaged and is necessary for the food production of the country.
It would, I anticipate, not be in order if I argued too much from the general to the particular and said that rural communities in all parts of the country have recently been suffering a great deal of deprivation of the transport facilities available to them, even though that may be so; but I can say—and remain within the rules of order—that this community has had a substantial cut in the transport facilities available to it through the closing of this station, and that that is


irritating for the community and harmful to the country because of the loss in food production which is likely to be the result.
The closing of this station has diminished the transport facilities available to the neighbourhood. I know that there is a bus service to Tetbury and to Cirencester, and the Bristol Traction and Tramway Company, which is always extremely helpful in these matters, has improved the bus service since the withdrawal of the trains. But there is now no public transport of any kind from this area to Kemble Station, and only by getting to Kemble can one go to London or, in the other direction, to Stroud, Gloucester and Cheltenham. The present buses are not so frequent as the previous buses and trains which ran in this area.
I understand that the South-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee has considered this matter and has recommended that the station shall not be kept open for passenger traffic, but I do not know what were the circumstances which it considered with the matter or what facts and figures it had before it. I understand that the Committee is not bound to consult any particular class of people and that its procedure is entirely a matter for the Committee.
I am making no attack on the Committee. It certainly would be intolerable if a public inquiry were demanded every time that Committee made a decision which was not particularly agreeable to every interest that might be concerned. I do know that its procedure on this occasion was unsatisfactory to the extent that it did not inform the Tetbury Rural District Council about the decision and that the council learned of it only from an announcement in the Press.
I am also aware that the financial losses of British Railways are growing, and apparently show no signs of improving in any way. It is, therefore, no good my complaining about that and, in the next breath, demanding that an uneconomic line or an uneconomic station be kept open. But in this case I believe that much better financial arrangements could be made and that the financial arguments which are adduced for the closing of the station are inadequate.
The branch line from Kemble to Tetbury does pay and, I understand, pays quite substantially. It is not proposed that the trains which run on this line should be diminished in number. The same number of trains will continue to run through Culkerton station as before. The only difference will be that the trains will not stop for passengers to alight. I imagine that they will frequently stop for freight to be put down, but that a passenger wanting to go to Culkerton will be compelled to go on to Kemble or Tetbury as the case may be and to walk back. I recently heard of a friend of mine who attempted to board a train in Reading Station, but was told by a porter, "You cannot do that. This train does not stop here." Perhaps that will now be happening in Culkerton.
I further understand that the staff of the station consists of one man. He will not be dismissed, but will continue to function for part of the day at Culkerton and for part of the day at Tetbury. I understand that the cost of keeping him there, as it affects Culkerton Station, will be about £380 a year. If the station were kept open and he was on duty all day that cost would rise, but my suggestion is that the station should be made an unstaffed halt.
I understand that the objection to making it an unstaffed halt is that the platform of the existing station is said to be unsafe. I saw it last Sunday and to me it looked to be one of the most solid things I have ever seen. I may be wrong and that in some way or other it is unsafe, but it certainly does not look it. Even if it is unsafe, the platform is almost 100 yards long. Surely the whole of it is not unsafe. I venture to suggest that that part of the platform nearer to Kemble could be quite easily cut off and the rest demolished, burnt down or disposed of as British Railways think fit. The short bit could be so made that the one-coach or two-coach trains could easily set down and pick up passengers.
If that part of the platform was considered unsafe and not worth considering, would it not be possible merely to have sleepers laid on the ground for the use of passengers boarding or alighting? I understand that in that case it would be necessary to fix steps to the coaches which use the line, in the way that diesel cars have them fixed already. That would


cost almost nothing and would meet the case for an unstaffed halt.
The revenue purely from passengers is, of course, small. It averages about £30 a year, but the possibility of this rural community being able to use the station is one of the facilities which the railway offers to the neighbourhood. Every time one of the facilities is withdrawn it makes it less and less likely that the people will use the railway at all, and more and more likely that they will use buses or private transport. It is one more blow to the amenities of the countryside.
From the financial point of view I believe that if arrangements were made on the lines I have suggested it would result, if not in a profit, certainly in a very small loss indeed. I know that my right hon. Friend has no powers to direct that the Transport Commission shall keep this station open, but I hope that he will be able to draw the attention of the Commission to the possibilities which I have ventured to outline. I believe that if the Transport Commission go into the matter again on those lines, it will find it quite possible, financially, to keep this station open. If it does so, it will perform a great service to the local community in Culkerton and Tetbury and, incidentally, to farm production in this country.

10.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): It is often my task to seek to justify to my hon. Friends and to the House the closing of branch railway lines and stations, and, it may well be in the near future, the closing down or withdrawal of an increasing number of stopping passenger services.
The House must, of course, remember that under the Transport Act of 1947 there was an obligation imposed upon the British Transport Commission to cover its costs, taking one year with another. We have indicated to the House recently that the Commission is operating at present at a very substantial loss. On each occasion when hon. Members have raised the question of the closing of branch lines or stations, I have had to state quite plainly the position of the Government.
The position of the Government is, first, that we have no power to intervene in these matters unless, as a result of representations from the local people ad-

versely affected by the closing of services, the Central Transport Consultative Committee makes a recommendation to the Minister that the services should be maintained. That, of course, has not been done in this case, and my right hon. Friend has, therefore, no power to intervene.
I want to be perfectly frank with the House and with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Even if my right hon. Friend had power to intervene, he would not think it proper to do so in this case. We have a number of cases where quite substantial communities are being deprived of rail services as a result of the closing of unremunerative branch lines. Wherever it is possible to do so, the Transport Commission tries to arrange that there shall be an alternative means of public transport to take the place of its branch lines.
In this particular area, I should have thought it was true to say that the bus services are reasonably adequate, and that, in certain respects, they are more convenient than the railways. The bus service from Bristol to Cirencester runs through Tetbury and Culkerton village itself, thus bringing public transport closer to the inhabitants of Culkerton than it is possible for the railway to do. It goes also through Rodmarton and Coates, about two miles north of Kemble.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud complained that it did not actually serve Kemble, but it does go reasonably close to it, providing six trips a day in each direction, with an extra five trips on Saturdays. This compares with the eight services in each direction that were provided by the railway. Kemble Junction is the only place served by the railway to which there is no bus connection, although, as I have mentioned, the bus passes through Coates, which is not far away. Therefore, in the closing of this station it cannot be said that the local inhabitants are without a fairly reasonable bus service to most places in the locality.
I come now to the amount of use that was made of the railway line while the station was open. The existing passenger revenue was only £30 a year. The average number of passengers who used Culkerton Station was between one and two per day. It really is impossible


to ask British Railways to maintain a station for passengers when the number who seek to avail themselves of the railway service is as small as that.
Collection and delivery traffic will continue in the future to be dealt with from Cirencester; this was the case even before Culkerton Station was closed. Parcels and freight facilities, which include the use of a weighbridge at Culkerton Station, will continue to be dealt with between 8.45 and 10.45 in the morning from Monday to Saturday. That in itself, I understand, probably will not cover its costs, but it will be going a long way to try to meet the convenience of the rural population to which my hon. Friend referred.
I have given the facts and the figures about the use that was made of Culkerton Station. But, unfortunately, not only was the station being operated at a heavy loss, but recently it became apparent that it would be necessary to carry out extensive repairs to the platform, costing about £300. Although the annual loss which had been made was the difference between staff costs of £385 a year and passenger revenue of £30 a year, with a certain amount of assistance from the freight, the additional fact that if the station was to be kept in operation it would be necessary to carry out these extensive repairs brought the matter to a head, and British Railways decided to put to the South-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee its strong case for closing the station.
It is true that it was bitterly opposed by the Tetbury Rural District Council and by the Ashley Parish Council. They were fortunate in having as a member of both the Consultative Committee and the Tetbury R.D.C., a Mr. Archer, who appeared and expressed his views most forcefully and, I believe, very eloquently to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. He failed, however, to persuade the Committee that it was desirable that this station should be kept open. He was able to advance sufficient arguments for the Committee to consider it on two occasions, but the Committee came to its—conclusion that the closing of the station was justified—unanimously except for one person, and that was Mr. Archer.
The matter was then considered by the Central Transport Consultative Com-

mittee, which, at its meeting on 10th January, this year accepted the recommendation without any comment. In those circumstances, surely British Railways were abundantly justified in closing the station on 5th March.
I should like to indicate to my hon. Friend how important we believe it to be that the British Railways should try to rationalise their services. I said on 16th December that the country would probably have to face a very substantial change in the services provided by British Railways:
The Commission accepts … that it will mean a far-reaching change in the existing pattern of the passenger service. Broadly speaking, it will mean leaving the railways to operate the fast, long-distance passenger services between the principal centres of population, and transferring local passenger services on both main and branch railway lines to suitable road services which already exist or are provided as a substitute for the services closed down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1613.]
The House is not justified in asking the British Transport Commission to run its services without a loss if, at the same time, it does not accept the need for closing down services like the station at Culkerton where the income is only a fraction of the cost of maintenance.

Mr. Kershaw: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he knows whether the Transport Users' Consultative Committee ever considered whether the station might be made an unstaffed halt, or whether it never addressed its mind to that proposition at all?

Mr. Molson: The Committee considered this matter on two occasions. Mr. Archer stated very forcibly the case for keeping it open, and I am sure that he would not have overlooked an argument of that kind.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think that the closing sentences of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech deserved a rather larger audience than he has had this evening because they were a reiteration, applied to a particular case, of a statement which, when originally made by the right hon. Gentleman, on 16th December, 1955, caused very considerable alarm and misgiving.
I happen to know this district fairly well. I go to Coates when I want to cross the railway line to go to the Tunnel


Hotel, which stands at that end of the Sapperton Tunnel. It is a very interesting example of the way in which rural transport is being successively made difficult for these districts, for down to the beginning of this century the Thames and Severn Canal ran by the side of the railway through this very famous tunnel. That has disappeared; the ruins of the tunnel are now merely of archaeological interest.
The hotel, which at one time dealt with the considerable custom of the bargees using the canal, is, as far as I could see, now practically derelict, and now the railway station is also to cease to function. It is increasingly important that there should be a considered view of how far we are to expect rural transport to be what is called a paying proposition, which is adjudged not by service rendered to the community, but by whether, when we have the kind of arithmetic to which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the House tonight, we produce a balance sheet which shows a loss.
I should have thought myself that the suggestion that this station should be an unattended halt would have been a quite reasonable suggestion for the British Transport Commission to have considered, and I hope that its members will read the debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT and then find a way of ensuring that that facility is kept, even if only one or two people want to use it. I am told that bankers always welcome small accounts in the belief that, with a little luck, they may grow into big ones. It may be that in the future, if this facility remains, even as a comparatively inexpensive halt, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has asked, not quite so dreary a prospect as it is now.
There is a feeling of hopelessness growing in rural areas because of the continual withdrawal of transport facilities from them, and the House ought to be aware and take notice of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.